Automated vehicles and Australian personal injury compensation schemes

Mark Brady, Kylie Burns, Tania Leiman, Kieran Tranter

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    71 Downloads (Pure)


    This article argues that the existing regimes in Australia dealing with rehabilitation and compensation for injury and death arising from road trauma — the compulsory third party motor accident schemes and the national injury insurance schemes — will require reform to accommodate the adoption of automated vehicles on public roads. It suggests that victims injured by automated vehicles should not suffer differential entitlement to compensation or be arbitrarily excluded from the various schemes as a result of outmoded and narrow definitions or by the inability to establish ‘fault’ where a vehicle is highly automated. It argues that to ensure continuous coverage of the schemes there will need to be reforms to the threshold definitions of accident/personal injury. It further contends that the current fault-based systems may no longer remain a viable pathway for attributing liability in an accident involving highly automated vehicles and require reform.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)32-63
    Number of pages32
    JournalTorts Law Journal
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - 2017


    • Automated vehicles
    • AI driver
    • CTP
    • personal injury compensation
    • Motor vehicle accident


    Dive into the research topics of 'Automated vehicles and Australian personal injury compensation schemes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this