A passenger is rarely the one steering, or choosing the speed or the route. That matters legally, because passenger injury claims run through Queensland’s compulsory third party (CTP) scheme, which asks whether the injury was caused by the wrongful act or omission of someone other than the injured person.
What complicates these claims is what the passenger knew before getting in, and what they did once they were in. Where a passenger relied on a driver they knew, or ought to have known, was intoxicated, Queensland’s law presumes contributory negligence and sets a minimum reduction in the damages unless that presumption is rebutted. It sets no fixed minimum at all for not wearing a seatbelt.
Who a passenger claims against
The scheme is set up by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). Under s 5(1) it covers injury resulting from the driving of a vehicle, a collision, a vehicle running out of control or a defect causing loss of control, and only where the injury was caused wholly or partly by a wrongful act or omission of a person other than the injured person. That last requirement decides most passenger claims.
Section 31(1) then decides which insurer answers: the CTP insurer under the vehicle’s policy, a self-insurer where the registered owner is one, and otherwise the Nominal Defendant, including where the vehicle or its insurer cannot be identified. Where more than one vehicle was involved, s 31 identifies an insurer for each of them, and the claim runs against the insurer behind whichever driver is alleged to be at fault, which need not be the car the passenger was in. More than one can be involved. For an uninsured vehicle, s 5(2) requires the accident to have happened on a road or in a public place.
The driver at fault is often a partner, a parent or a workmate. An established claim is met by the insurer, not by that person directly, subject to the rights of recourse below.
Travelling with an intoxicated driver
The Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) contains three presumptions of contributory negligence built around intoxication. They do not stop a claim; they set a floor under how far the damages must be cut if the presumption is not rebutted.
The threshold word is not “drinking”. The dictionary in schedule 2 defines a person as intoxicated only where they are under the influence of alcohol or a drug to the extent that their capacity to exercise proper care and skill is impaired. Having had a drink is not enough; none of these presumptions is engaged until that impairment is made out. Each also requires the intoxication to have existed at the time of the breach of duty, and none arises unless the defendant alleges contributory negligence.
| Provision | Trigger | Minimum | Rebuttal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 47 | The injured person was intoxicated | 25%, or 50% in the narrow driver case described below | Intoxication did not contribute, or was not self-induced |
| Section 48 | Claimant aged 16 or over relied on a person they knew, or ought to have known, was intoxicated | 25% | Intoxication did not contribute, or reliance could not reasonably have been avoided |
| Section 49 | A section 48 case, claimant was a passenger, driver at 150mg or more per 100mL of blood or unable to exercise effective control | 50% | As for section 48, but reliance is deemed |
The awareness test in s 48(1)(c) is not purely subjective: it also catches a passenger who ought reasonably to have been aware. Section 49 is additional rather than standalone, operating on the same plaintiff and defendant as s 48, lifting the floor to 50% and deeming the reliance by s 49(3). Only s 49 is passenger-specific; s 48 is general. Section 48(5) abolishes voluntary assumption of risk here, so an insurer cannot argue that a passenger who got in accepted the whole risk: the statute converts that into a percentage.
A passenger’s own intoxication
Section 47 is keyed to the injured person’s own intoxication rather than the driver’s, so a passenger’s condition and their reliance on the driver can both be in issue on the same facts; how the two interact is not spelt out in the Act. One point is commonly overstated: the 50% floor in s 47(5) reaches only a person who was the driver, and then only where the evidence establishes 150mg or more of alcohol per 100mL of blood, or incapacity to exercise effective control. Driver status alone is not enough, and a passenger’s own intoxication never engages it. Nor does intoxication lower the standard owed to you: by s 46(1)(c) it does not of itself affect the standard of care owed to a person.
Seatbelts: no fixed percentage in Queensland
Queensland has no fixed statutory percentage for a passenger who was not wearing a seatbelt. The general contributory negligence provisions in the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) are ss 23 and 24, and neither sets a rate; the fixed minimums the Act does prescribe are attached to intoxication or criminal conduct, never to seatbelts. A set percentage taken from another State’s scheme has no application here.
Instead, s 23 measures the passenger’s own care by the standard of a reasonable person in that passenger’s position, on what they knew or ought reasonably to have known. Section 10 of the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), which supplies its meaning here, then reduces the damages to the extent just and equitable, having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage. Those last four words carry the weight: a belt does not cause a collision, so the argument is not that the passenger helped cause the crash but that the injuries would have been less severe with one on. That is a question of evidence, usually medical, sometimes engineering. Section 24 permits a reduction of up to 100%, but any figure must be justified.
When a passenger claim can be cut back sharply
Two situations sit outside that analysis. The first is s 45, which removes civil liability where the breach of duty happened while the injured person was engaged in conduct that is an indictable offence and that conduct contributed materially to the risk of the harm. Both limbs matter: the passenger’s own conduct must amount to the offence, not merely their knowledge of someone else’s. Even then a court may award damages under s 45(2) where the exclusion would operate harshly and unjustly, reduced by at least 25%.
The second is a misconception rather than a real risk. Section 58 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) lets an insurer recover certain costs as a debt from the driver in narrow circumstances, such as unauthorised use, or an inability to exercise effective control through alcohol or a non-medicinal drug. Each limb has its own conditions, and s 58(3) confines recovery to costs reasonably attributable to that incapacity. It is sometimes read as meaning there is no cover when the driver was drunk. There is: the insurer meets the claim, and the recourse is between insurer and driver.
The deadlines that run from the day of the crash
Before any court action, s 37 requires a written Notice of Accident Claim. Where it goes to the Nominal Defendant because the vehicle cannot be identified, notice is due within 3 months. In every other case, including an identified vehicle that turns out to be uninsured, two dates run and the earlier governs: 9 months from the accident, and 1 month from the claimant’s first consultation with a lawyer about making a claim. That second limb can fall well before the nine-month mark. Where symptoms were not immediately apparent, the 9 months runs from their first appearance instead of from the accident. That is how the Supreme Court has applied s 37(2)(b)(i): in White v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd (No 1) [2009] QSC 141, [6], Wilson J identified the initial period as “nine months from their first appearance” where symptoms were not immediately apparent.
Missing that period does not end the claim by itself: under s 37(3) the obligation continues and a reasonable excuse for the delay must be given. Failing that, s 39(5) stops the claim proceeding unless the insurer waives the noncompliance or the court allows it. Only one deadline in the section is an outright bar, the unidentified-vehicle claim against the Nominal Defendant at 9 months.
Separately, s 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) requires a personal injury action to be started within 3 years of the date the cause of action arose. Section 57 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) provides a limited saving: where notice was given before the 3 years ran out, a proceeding may still be brought after the limitation period ends, but only within 6 months of the notice or of leave being granted, or a longer period the court allows. Part 3 of the 1974 Act can extend the limitation period for a person under a disability. The s 37 notice dates are separate and are not extended with it. Our guides to CTP claim time limits in Queensland and to Nominal Defendant claims work through those dates.
Within 6 months of the notice, s 41 requires the insurer to state in writing whether liability is admitted or denied and, if contributory negligence is claimed, its degree as a percentage.
Published 2 September 2026.
Where this leaves an injured passenger
Four questions tend to decide a passenger’s claim: whether another person’s wrongful act or omission caused the injury, whether that person was intoxicated within the statutory meaning, whether a seatbelt argument rests on evidence, and whether notice was given in time. Our complete guide to CTP claims in Queensland sets out the wider process.
Related reading
- CTP claim time limits in Queensland
- Motorcycle accident claims in Queensland
- How Fraser Lawyers helps with CTP claims in Queensland
- Contact Fraser Lawyers
Need advice? Time limits and key decisions in injury claims can be strict and easy to miss. If this is your situation, contact Fraser Lawyers to understand your rights and where you stand, with no obligation. |
This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Queensland law and the figures referred to can change, and every situation turns on its own facts. Contact Fraser Lawyers for advice specific to your circumstances.
If you would like to discuss your matter, you can book a consultation or call (07) 5554 6116.
