Publications

An Uber driver who was punched through the window during a road-rage incident has failed to establish entitlement to statutory benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) in Aziz v NRMA Insurance. 

While the claimant was still driving when the assault occurred, the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) concluded that his injuries were caused by a deliberate criminal act rather than the use or operation of a motor vehicle. Accordingly, not every injury sustained on the road, or even while driving, will constitute a “motor accident” for the purposes of the MAIA. 

The case is likely to be of particular interest in disputes involving road-rage incidents, assaults at intersections, confrontations between motorists and pedestrians, and other circumstances where an intentional act intervenes between the driving of a vehicle and the injury sustained. 

Facts 

The claimant was driving for Uber in Glebe on 13 October 2025. While turning, he stopped at a pedestrian crossing after observing a pedestrian enter the crossing unexpectedly. A verbal exchange developed between the claimant and the pedestrian. The claimant lowered his window and continued speaking with the pedestrian while seated in the driver’s seat of his vehicle. 

The pedestrian approached the driver’s side window and punched the claimant in the face, causing injury. CCTV footage captured the incident. 

The claimant sought statutory benefits under Part 3 of the MAIA. The insurer denied liability, arguing that the injuries did not result from a “motor accident” as defined by the Act. 

The Issue 

The issue was not whether the assault itself constituted a motor accident. Rather, the issue was whether the claimant’s injuries, sustained during the assault, resulted from a “motor accident” as defined by s 1.4 MAIA. The distinction is subtle but legally important. 

A Significant Finding for Claimants 

Senior Member Williams held that the claimant was still “driving” the vehicle even though it was stationary at the crossing. The engine remained running, the claimant remained in control of the vehicle, and he intended to proceed once it was safe to do so. Accordingly, the PIC found that the temporal requirement in the definition was satisfied because the injury occurred during the driving of the vehicle. 

The Member observed that driving does not cease merely because a vehicle temporarily stops at a traffic light, toll gate or pedestrian crossing. 

The decision confirms a broad approach to what constitutes “driving” for the purposes of the MAIA. 

Why the Claim Still Failed 

Despite satisfying the temporal requirement, the claimant failed on causation. 

Drawing upon established authorities concerning proximate cause, the Member emphasised that the MAIA requires a close causal relationship between the use or operation of a motor vehicle and the injury. A mere factual or temporal connection is insufficient. 

Applying authorities concerning causation under s 1.4, the Member concluded that the real and effective cause of the injury was the pedestrian’s punch rather than the use or operation of the vehicle. 

In this case, that cause was obvious. 

The injury was caused by the pedestrian’s punch. 

While the claimant happened to be sitting in a vehicle at the time, and while he was technically still driving, the vehicle itself did not cause the injury. At most, the driving of the vehicle provided the occasion for the assault. The use of the vehicle was merely incidental. 

Accordingly: 

• the use or operation of the vehicle did not cause the injury; 

• the injury did not result from the driving of the vehicle; 

• there was no relevant dangerous situation caused by the driving of the vehicle;  

• the claimant’s injuries did not result from a motor accident; and 

• The claimant was, therefore, not entitled to statutory benefits. 

Implications for Motor Accident Practice 

The decision has several practical implications for MVA practitioners. 

1. Temporal connection is not enough

The most important takeaway is that an injury occurring while a person is driving will not necessarily be compensable under the MAIA. 

Practitioners should carefully distinguish between: 

• injuries sustained while driving; and 

• injuries caused by the use or operation of a motor vehicle. 

Aziz demonstrates that satisfying the first proposition does not automatically satisfy the second. 

2. Assault cases will face significant hurdles

Many assault cases may face significant hurdles, depending upon whether the use or operation of the vehicle can be identified as a real and effective cause of the injury 

The decision will likely make it difficult for claimants to establish statutory benefits entitlement where injuries arise from: 

• road-rage incidents; 

• assaults at traffic lights; 

• altercations at pedestrian crossings; and 

• attacks following verbal disputes between motorists and pedestrians. 

Unless the use or operation of the vehicle can be identified as a real effective cause of the injury, insurers are likely to argue that the injury was caused by the intentional conduct of the third party rather than by the vehicle’s use or operation. 

3. “Dangerous situation” arguments remain limited

Aziz affirms that the dangerous situation must itself be caused by the driving of the vehicle. It is not enough that a dangerous situation arises while a vehicle is present. 

The PIC drew a clear distinction between a dangerous circumstance created by driving and a dangerous circumstance created by an independent third party. 

4. CCTV evidence can be decisive

The CCTV footage was described as the best evidence available and ultimately drove many of the PIC’s factual findings. Practitioners should continue to seek and preserve CCTV footage promptly wherever causation is disputed. 

Key Takeaways 

Aziz is an important causation decision. The PIC accepted that the claimant was still driving when injured but held that this was not enough. The dominant and effective cause of the injury was the deliberate punch delivered by a pedestrian, not the use or operation of the vehicle. 

For practitioners, the MAIA does not respond to every injury that occurs in or around a motor vehicle. The focus remains on whether the vehicle’s use or operation was the real and effective cause of the injury. Where the injury is instead caused by an independent criminal act, statutory benefits may not be available notwithstanding that the claimant was behind the wheel when the injury occurred.

Disclosure and important note: This article is based on our own legal research and thinking. Some of its content has been drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The authors have checked and approved this article, including the AI generated content, for publication.

This article was published on 12 of October 2026 by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website. (www.codea.com.au). If you or a loved one has been injured, use our Personal injury Claim Check now.