Analysis of Personal Injury Compensation: Mark's Case and Laws

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of a personal injury case involving an employee named Mark, examining the complexities of workers' compensation and accident compensation schemes in Australia and New Zealand. The report delves into the specifics of Mark's accident, which occurred while he was using a company vehicle, and explores potential areas of dispute, such as whether the accident occurred within the scope of his employment. It references key legislation like the Workers Compensation Act and the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (NZ), highlighting the responsibilities of employers and the rights of employees. The report further examines the implications of Mark's actions, including his personal errands during work hours, and the potential conflicts arising from his use of a company credit card. It also touches upon relevant case law, such as Donselaar v Donselaar, to illustrate the legal principles governing compensation for injuries. Furthermore, the report contrasts the Australian and New Zealand systems, outlining the different accounts and entitlements under the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) scheme. The analysis considers various scenarios, including potential claims for damages to the company vehicle and the impact of third-party insurance, providing a thorough understanding of the legal and practical considerations involved in personal injury compensation.

Personal Injuries
Compensation

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
PART A...........................................................................................................................................1
PART B...........................................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Acts are made by government in order to make a proper system for resolving disputes.
Regulation tell people about what is wrong and right, they also state the rights which are
available to public. This report is based on the case of Mark, significant laws like worker’s
compensation act will become part of this assignment 1. The areas of potential dispute and
difficulties will be included under this file. It will also explain the compensation scheme which is
present in Australia and some important part of Accident Compensation Act 2001 (NZ) will get
cover under this project.
PART A
In this case, Mark is working in a small business. He has a driver's license but he does not
own a car. His boss asked him to take the company's car so he can be attending a meeting next
day. Mark uses car of the company in normal days, he buys various stuffs that are needed in
office generally at the time that is convenient for him. On the day of meeting, he went for
shopping in the car given by company. He knew that he can purchase some heavy stuff today
because he can keep them in car. He also bought some important things which are needed in
office. He was at the store so he thought that it would be convenient for him to buy company's
and home stuff at the same time. Before going to office, he decided to unload the goods which he
had purchased to his family. At the time of travelling towards his house, his car collided with
other person's vehicle. Mark got injured 2. He was following traffic rules but the driver of other
car wasn't. He had heart attract which is the prime reason that he run his into when the traffic
light was red. At the time of autopsy, it was found that the person who died did not show any
symptom which could have alerted Mark about his condition.
According to the workmen compensation act 1951, chapter 4 part 4.2, it is the
responsibility of every employer to pay the amount of compensation to the employee who got
injured at the time of employment. In this case. Mark was doing his personal work but at the
same time he was also doing job. He is responsible for buying the stuff which is needed in the
company and at the time of purchase necessary item from store he used credit card which was
1 Australia SW. Comparison of Workers¿ Compensation Arrangements in Australia and
New Zealand. Australian Government-Safe Work Australia; 2012 Dec.
2 Cain T. Third Party Funding of Personal Injury Tort Claims: Keep the Baby and Change
the Bathwater. Chi.-Kent L. Rev.. 2014;89:11.
1

provided by his organisation. The main point of dispute in this case will arise for the
compensation that Mark will demand from his boss. Workmen compensation act states that if a
worker get injured at the time employment then he can claim for money that is he had spent at
the time of treatment. Mark suffered from significant injuries and he was hospitalised for proper
care. On the other hand, his boss may claim that he was not on office duty. He was also buying
his own stuff which would not be used at the workplace 3. This mean that he was not on
''employment'' and it is clearly stated in the Workmen compensation act, 1987 that if a worker
suffers injured at the time of ''employment'' only then he can claim compensation from employer.
Another reason of conflicts will be the mode of payment. At the time of buying various
stuff from the shop, Mark used company's credit card for purchasing office stuff. He made the
payment of various things which were needed for house from his own cash. He can argue with
his boss that if he would have doing shopping for his home then why he will use credit card
which is given by the organisation where he is working. This may create tension between two
sides because his boss may argue that he did not know that Mark went to shopping. Company
gave him credit card to use it at the time working hours. The main purpose of his visit was
buying personal stuff, not the things that are required in the office. At the time of accident, he
was not doing his job according to the meaning of ''working hour'' which is stated in law.
In New south Wales, workmen compensation act 1987, workmen compensation act 1998
and workmen compensation regulation 2016 are the main laws which a person can use for
claiming any amount. These rules should be followed by every person who is living in NSW. In
normal working days, Mark purchase various equipment’s, that are required in the office, at the
time which he feel convenient 4. At the day of collision, he was also buying stuff according to
convenience. This mean that he was do his job at the when he got injured. The regulation
prevailing to workmen compensation acts in NSW states that if a person gets involve in an
accident in working day then the employer will be liable to pay necessary fund to the employee.
Mark's boss can claim that he was purchased some of the office equipment in to show that he is
3 Caponecchia C, Sheils I. Perceptions of personal vulnerability to workplace hazards in
the Australian construction industry. Journal of safety research. 2011 Aug 31;42(4):253-
8.
4 Chang VC, Ruseckaite R, Collie A, Colantonio A. Examining the epidemiology of work-
related traumatic brain injury through a sex/gender lens: analysis of workers’
compensation claims in Victoria, Australia. Occup Environ Med. 2014 Oct 1;71(10):695-
703.
2

working. Mark went for shopping for purchasing necessary things which were needed in his
home. He cannot argue that his was working when his main motive was shopping for his house.
If this logic is applied in current scenario, then Mark can buy something of 1 dollar, at 10 p.m.,
from a store and then purchase various stuff for his home. This will indirectly give him the status
that he is ''working'' and he can ask for compensation every-time he get involve in an accident
while using company's car.
One can also see this case from another angle, employer can ask Mark to pay for the
damages which has happened to the car of company 5. Mark was using the vehicle, given by
organisation, for his personal use without taking any permission from his senior. His boss gave
him motor vehicle so he could use it at the time travelling for the meeting. Employer trust Mark
and gave him his car but he did not take any prior approval for using it for his own purpose. His
boss can argue that the company will deduct some amount from his salary so they can recover
the cost which damage car. Loss of pay would not be a weak point in this case. But Mark can
argue that he was using car for office purpose and he bought some important stuff which is
required in firm. He can also argue that he uses companies on various occasion without taking
permission of anyone. This mean that he does not need to ask anyone before using motor vehicle
according to his own desire.
The reason behind collision can also become another point of conflicts. If, somehow,
Mark's boss prove that Mark was not ''working'' then the whole scenario will get change. The
topic of loss of pay for the damage done to car will become main issue of this case. Mark can
argue that the accident does not happen because of his fault, the other person was having heart
attack and he collided his vehicle in the car that is given to Mark by company 6. The autopsy
report of dead person also revealed that he did not give symbol which could alert Mark. If he has
not done anything wrong and damage did not happen because of him that why should he pay for
the car. The employer’s options will be different; he can say that he does not allow Mark to use
the vehicle then why he took it out for his own work.
5 Elbers NA, Hulst L, Cuijpers P, Akkermans AJ, Bruinvels DJ. Do compensation
processes impair mental health? A meta-analysis. Injury. 2013 May 31;44(5):674-83.
6 Grant GM, O’Donnell ML, Spittal MJ, Creamer M, Studdert DM. Relationship between
stressfulness of claiming for injury compensation and long-term recovery: a prospective
cohort study. JAMA psychiatry. 2014 Apr 1;71(4):446-53.
3

Mark will be compensated for the injury according to workmen compensation act. He
was ''working'' so his boss cannot reject his claim. The provisions of employment related to
journey will apply in this case, Mark for coming to his office and the accident happens on his
way to workplace. Besides compensation, his boss also has to give him proper medical advice or
treatment so he can become healthy and return to his job 7. The company, in which Mark is
working, will get the amount of insurance according to the provisions of motor accident
compensation act. Mark will also get some money for his treatment because of the third party
policy. The mistake is happened from the side of other person so they Mark's company is not
liable to pay them any amount. According to the law, all the vehicles should have third party
insurance so if an accident happens than the other person should get paid for medical treatment
and damage to the vehicle. In case, a vehicle does not have insurance then they have to face
serious legal consequences for this wrong doing.
Case law, Truck Driver’s Search for object with which to Assault Driving Partner
was Substantial Deviation from Employment, decision of court was affirmed that dismissed
truck driver complaint against the former employer in order to recover the worker’s
compensation benefits. It was appeared from the injury that injured driver become became angry
on his driving partner and stopped the vehicle which is located in remote location. Moreover,
driver had set a personal mission in order to obtain an object to assault his driving partner. From
this scenario, court acknowledge a conflict evidence that injured river claimed for the injuries
which has been given by the driving partner and indicated that he was leaving the driver in
Arizona desert. But on the basis of that trial court found that testimony of injured driver is not to
be credible.
PART B
Accident Compensation Corporation Act 2001, in this act New Zealand Crown entity are
responsible for administering the countries for no-fault of accidental injury scheme. In this
scheme it is providing financial compensation and support to citizens or residents who have
suffered from the personal injury. Accident Compensation Corporation is the sole and
7 Iles RA, Wyatt M, Pransky G. Multi-faceted case management: reducing compensation
costs of musculoskeletal work injuries in Australia. Journal of occupational rehabilitation.
2012 Dec 1;22(4):478-88.
4

compulsory provider regarding the accident insurance for all work and non-work injuries 8. As
this scheme is administrated on a no-faults basis, so anyone who had suffered from injury are
eligible to cover under this act. But, those people who had suffered from personal injury are not
having any authority to sue at-fault party. However, they can claim for the exemplary damages.
Case Law, Donselaar v Donselaar [1992] 1 NZLE 97. Here court rules that Accident
Compensation Act 1972 are not prohibiting any damage for exemplary injuries. The decision of
court was based on the activity which had conducted by the defendant and due to this plaintiff
had suffered from the exemplary damages. The factor which had caused by the defendant was
included in special punishment of exemplary damages. So, defendant has to compensate the
injured amount to plaintiff. This act working with trusted partners and communities so that they
can prevent unnecessary injuries which are causing by other person.
Under the scheme of ACC, it is providing range of entitlements to injured person also
providing compensation for the cost of treatment and many more 9. These entitlements are
offered under this scheme when various eligibility criteria had been fulfilled by the plaintiff.
There are mainly four accounts which are included in this act i.e. work, earners, non-earners and
motor vehicles. Fifth account is also there i.e. treatment injury which had been drawn on both the
non-earners and earners. These are enumerated as below:
Account Covers
Work Work-related injuries
Earners It covers non-workers injuries by income
payees
Non-earners It involved non-work injuries by non-income
earners such as children, visitors, unemployed
etc.
Motor Vehicle The injury which is related prevented on public
roads.
Treatment injury Injuries which are the result of medical
8 Lewis R, Morris A. Tort law culture in the United Kingdom: image and reality in
personal injury compensation.
9 Ruseckaite R, Collie A. The incidence and impact of recurrent workplace injury and
disease: a cohort study of WorkSafe Victoria, Australia compensation claims. BMJ open.
2013 Jan 1;3(3):e002396.
5

treatment.
Apart from that, Workers Compensation Act 1987, were also introduced which outlines
the compensation and rehabilitation of workers who had suffered from work-related injury. As it
is also providing compensation benefits to workers who had injured from the dismissal from
workplace 10. In given case scenario, Mark is entitling to receive compensation from entity
because injury had been occurred during the office hour work. Here, organisation is liable to
compensate injured amount to injured party if accident had taken place at the time during course
of employment. Moreover, there are some notable events which are included in this such as;
violence against the staff, if client had convicted any fraud where amount is more than
$10million over the last four years, medical misadventure claims, mislabelling injuries as
degenerative. Also injured person also has to prove that a serious nature of damage is occurred.
Non-fault compensation scheme is based on the principles where injured person is having
authority to receive compensation for the damages, without proving fault against the conflicting
party. Workmen’s compensation is considered as a type of no-fault compensation. To not to
compensate amount to injured person, then defendant has to prove that the injury which is caused
to them is due to the default of them only. So, offender is not liable for compensating entire
amount to injured person.
Furthermore, while introducing the act regarding non-fault compensation scheme in
future, it will give many advantage to people. First of all, advantage of introducing this act is
that; injured person will receive the compensation amount without proving any accountability
against the second person. Along with this, the person who had injured will be compensated by
the organisation at the time employment contract 11. But, disadvantage is that if person is having
a little injury also, then they will demand for the compensation which is not suitable for them.
There is some provision which are made in context of compensation for personal injury.
For example, employer is liable for paying compensation to workers if personal injury has been
arisen out of or in the course of worker’s employ. But compensation will be available only if
injury is expressly stated in the said provision.
10 Spearing NM, Connelly LB, Gargett S, Sterling M. Does injury compensation lead to
worse health after whiplash? A systematic review. Pain. 2012 Jun 30;153(6):1274-82.
11 Spearing NM, Connelly LB. Is compensation “bad for health”? A systematic meta-
review. Injury. 2011 Jan 31;42(1):15-24.
6

From my point of view, it is not significant for Australia to adopt New Zealand act i.e.
Accident Compensation Act 2001. As they are also having authority to set their own rules and
regulations and provide more benefit to the injured person. Along with this they can also set
some liabilities of injured person that up to which extent they are liable to receive compensation
amount. In contrary to this, if they are adopting the act of ACC then it can become some barrier
for Australian to apply same rules and regulations 12. Moreover, it also become obligation on
them to set some scheme in context of non-fault compensation and regulate them on continuous
basis.
CONCLUSION
From then above report, it can be concluded that a person is entitled for compensation if
he/she get injured at the time of working. Workman compensation act has various provision
which shows the rights of an employee as well as employer. There is a big different between
Motor accidents act 2006 (NSW) and Accident Compensation act 2001 (NZ). Both acts have
their own advantages and disadvantages, adopting one law in other state may create various
problems. Rules relating to insurance are crucial in both the acts. Furthermore, if Australia will
adopt Accident Corporation Act, then will face both advantage and disadvantage while
complying with them.
12 Xiang J, Bi P, Pisaniello D, Hansen A, Sullivan T. Association between high
temperature and work-related injuries in Adelaide, South Australia, 2001–2010. Occup
Environ Med. 2014 Apr 1;71(4):246-52.
7

REFERENCES
Books and journals
8