Tribunal referee Elizabeth Paton-Simpson declined the man’s claim and also redacted the names of those involved in her decision, which was released this week.
Paton-Simpson said that generally when a driver hits a parked vehicle there is an inference that they were careless.
“However, if a medical event caused the driver to lose control of the vehicle, the driver may not have been at fault,” she said.
“The driver may still be liable if, based on the driver’s knowledge of the medical condition, he or she should not have been driving.”
The woman had mild dementia of the Alzheimer’s variety and the car owner submitted there was a correlation between that condition and the chance of having a stroke.
Paton-Simpson said previous cases had established that any driver affected by a medical event might still be responsible for a crash if they knew there was a risk of their having an incident while behind the wheel.
For example, according to the NZTA, anyone who suffers even one seizure must not drive again for a year and remain episode-free for that time.
The woman had complained of a headache in the days before the crash but had not suffered a brain bleed before. She provided a letter from her doctor stating she was fit to be driving on the day the crash occurred.
“Risk of medical events is a matter of degree. We generally trust medical professionals to weigh up when the risk factors reach a level that makes someone unsafe to drive,” Paton-Simpson said in her decision.
She said the car’s owner was responsible for proving the woman was responsible for the crash.
“I find that there is no evidence she was aware that her medical condition made it unsafe for her to drive,” Paton-Simpson said.
“She cannot be held responsible for the crash and is not liable to pay for the damage.”
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
