New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Definition of accident

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2019

Inghams Enterprises v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover Issues)

Citation

[2019] NZACC 4
Court

District Court

The District Court allowed the appeal because there was insufficient evidence that the annular tear was caused by a series of accident events within the period identified by the Reviewer; the medical evidence did not establish that repeated lifting/twisting events were each substantially causative rather than constituting a gradual process, rendering the Reviewer's finding erroneous and requiring reinstatement of Inghams' decision declining cover.
19 Apr 2018

Estate of Trevarthen v Accident Compensation Corporation (Decline Cover)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 60
Court

District Court

Mesothelioma is a disease and, absent qualifying statutory carve-outs (s20(2)(e)-(h)), is excluded from the definition of personal injury under s26(2); alternatively, even accepting asbestos causation generally, the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the asbestos inhalation occurred on the specific occasion required by s25(1)(b); accordingly ACC's decisions declining cover are affirmed and the reviewer erred in holding that mesothelioma per se met the statutory definition of personal injury.
16 Mar 2018

Keen v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Cover)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 52
Court

District Court

Appeal dismissed because appellant did not demonstrate a personal injury by accident: medical evidence did not establish tissue damage or causation from lead/arsenic attributable to the property, exposure was a gradual process not a specific occasion as required by s25 and was not work-related, and hair analysis was insufficient to prove poisoning causally linked to the injury.
11 Mar 2016

Raharuhi v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 61
Court

District Court

The Court held that s390 permits revision where a decision is clearly erroneous in law as well as in fact; applying the correct legal tests under the 1992 Act and transitional s135 there was no legal basis to grant cover for the 1985 apnoea event, so ACC's revocation was lawful and the appeal is dismissed.
11 Mar 2013

PPCS Limited (Silver Fern Farms Ltd) v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 55
Court

District Court

Section 28(1)(a) requires only that the personal injury by accident be suffered while the claimant is at a place for the purposes of employment; ingestion of Naproxen at the workplace was an accident under s25(1)(ba) and therefore a work-related personal injury, and consequences from treatment are included under s28(5); accordingly ACC's decision accepting cover was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
1 Aug 2012

Cole v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 255
Court

District Court

Although repetitive training weakened the tibia, the Court found on the balance of probabilities that a specific event (the split stride jump on 15 June while carrying heavy weight) caused the bone to fracture; therefore the injury was an accident within the meaning of the Act and not excluded as a gradual process, so ACC's decision was quashed and cover granted.
5 Apr 2012

Nevill-Jackson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 121
Court

District Court

Judge accepted appellant's and skipper's consistent contemporaneous accounts and Professor Hill's medical opinion that the sudden wave-induced movement of the boat constituted an external force which, by producing a sudden increase in intra-abdominal/intra-oesophageal pressure during a heave, caused the oesophageal rupture; on the balance of probabilities this satisfied the statutory definition of an accident and established causation, so ACC's decline was quashed.
21 Sept 2011

Cooke v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 272
Court

District Court

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that floor-board vibrations constituted an external force causing a neck sprain; there was no expert medical evidence establishing causation and the Branch Medical Advisor found the mechanism implausible, therefore ACC's decision to decline cover was correctly confirmed.
13 Dec 2010

Wilson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2010] NZACC 228
Court

District Court

Because there was no single traumatic event or series of sudden traumatic events, no immediate significant pain, and no diagnosis of traumatic hernia, it is not more probable than not that the hernia was caused by an accident under s25; repeated lifting likely caused gradual weakening, which does not meet the statutory definition of accident, so cover is not available.
31 Oct 2008

DESHAN SAM V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC WN CIV 2008-485-829

Citation

openlaw-628b80b8_45cf_429d_bc02_ea519c0cf079.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held District Court erred by requiring identification of a single probable cause where a finite set of non‑remote possible causes existed; however appeal dismissed because, on proper construction of s 25, causes occurring within the mother's body (including cord or placental events occurring in utero) are not 'application of a force external to the human body' and the phrase 'exposure to the elements, or to extremes of temperature or environment' does not extend to the intra‑uterine/womb environment; claimant failed to prove on balance that injury was caused by an 'accident' within s 25.