Not all e-bikes are created equal, when it comes to making “motor vehicle accident” claims in the NSW Personal Injury Commission. The RMB Compensation Law Division explains.
The Personal Injury Commission recently determined that a claimant who sustained injuries while riding an e-bike was not involved in a “motor vehicle” accident and therefore did not have an entitlement to statutory benefits pursuant to the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
In order to be entitled to statutory benefits, including income loss payments and medical benefits, it must be established that the injuries occurred as a result of the use or operation of a “motor vehicle”.
In the matter CFD v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2023] NSWPIC 592, the Personal Injury Commission found that an e-bike involved in an accident did not meet the definition of a “motor vehicle” contained in the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
The accident occurred in 2022 when the claimant, who was riding an e-bike through a park in Surry Hills, was deliberately pushed by a pedestrian, causing her to hit a streetlight and suffer injury.
She lodged a claim for personal injury benefits alleging she was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The claim was denied by the nominal defendant.
In coming to his decision to deny benefits to the claimant, Senior Member Williams of the Personal Injury Commission confirmed the following:
- The definition of “motor vehicle” focuses attention on the intended operation of the vehicle in question at the time it was built. In this case, the question is: was the bike built to be propelled by a motor that forms part of the bike? The definition is concerned with the operation of the vehicle after modifications have subsequently been made to it by someone other than the manufacturer where those modifications alter the manner in which the vehicle operates, and where the manufacturer neither intended nor anticipated that such modifications would be made when the vehicle was built.
- I have found that at the time the incident occurred, a motor was attached to the rear wheel of the bike near the axel, that there was a battery under the seat and that the motor was engaged by a throttle located on the right handle of the bike. However, I am not satisfied that the evidence supports a finding about when the motor, throttle and battery were attached to the bike whether at the time it was built or subsequently, or whether modifications were made to the bike after it was sold by the manufacturer. In the absence of evidence about these matters, I am not persuaded, on balance, that the bike was built to be propelled by a motor that forms part of the bike.
- I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the bike is a “motor vehicle…”.
The take-out from this decision is:
In order for a person injured while riding an e-bike to have rights to compensation, they must be able to prove that the bike was manufactured with a motor which was intended to propel it.
If you require further information, or simply need advice from experienced professionals, your first step should be to contact our office to arrange a free consultation. You can contact us by by phone or our 'Ask a Question' tool on our website.