A pedestrian hit by a car in Queensland is usually dealt with through the compulsory third party (CTP) insurance scheme that stands behind every registered vehicle. Whether it responds, though, depends on the driver, or another road user, being at fault, and on the conditions set out below.

This article explains how an injured pedestrian fits into the CTP scheme, what has to be shown, the deadlines that apply, what happens when the vehicle cannot be identified, how contributory negligence can reduce a claim, and the evidence that tends to matter when fault is disputed. It is general information about Queensland law, not advice about your situation.

How a pedestrian fits into the CTP scheme

Queensland’s CTP scheme is governed by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The Act applies to personal injury that results from a collision with a motor vehicle, where the injury is caused wholly or partly by someone else’s wrongful act or omission: see s 5(1). A person on foot who is struck by a car is squarely within that description.

In practice, the person at fault is usually the driver, but an insured liability is met by the CTP insurer of the vehicle involved, not from the driver’s own home or savings. Section 31 sets out which insurer is responsible, including where the vehicle is uninsured or unidentified.

Fault has to be established

Queensland’s CTP scheme is fault-based. Section 5(1) requires that the injury be caused, wholly or partly, by a wrongful act or omission of someone other than the injured person. In plain terms, the pedestrian must show the driver was negligent.

The test for negligence is set out in the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). Under s 9, a driver breaches the duty of care only if the risk of harm was foreseeable and not insignificant, and a reasonable driver in the same position would have taken precautions against it. Section 11 then requires that the breach actually caused the injury, both as a matter of fact and as a matter of the appropriate scope of responsibility.

For a pedestrian, common examples of driver fault include failing to keep a proper lookout, travelling too fast for the conditions, failing to give way at a crossing, or driving while distracted. Whether the driver fell short of the reasonable-driver standard is a question of evidence, which is why the material gathered soon after the collision matters.

The time limits that matter most

Two separate deadlines run after a pedestrian collision, and missing either can prevent a claim from proceeding. The first is the notice deadline under the CTP legislation. The second is the deadline for starting court proceedings under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). They are not the same date, and meeting one does not satisfy the other.

DeadlineWhat it isWhen it must be met
Notice of Accident Claim (s 37)Written notice to the CTP insurer before any court actionThe earlier of: 9 months after the accident (or, if symptoms appear later, 9 months after they first appear); or 1 month after you first consult a lawyer about a possible claim
Notice to the Nominal DefendantNotice where the vehicle cannot be identifiedWithin 3 months; the claim is barred if notice is not given within 9 months
Court proceedings (s 11)Starting the claim in courtWithin 3 years of the date the cause of action arose

Under s 37 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), before you can bring a court action you must give the CTP insurer a written Notice of Accident Claim. For an identified, insured vehicle it must be given by the earlier of two dates: 9 months after the accident (or, if the injury’s symptoms are not immediately apparent, 9 months after those symptoms first appear), or 1 month after you first consult a lawyer about the possibility of making a claim. The second limb is easy to overlook: consulting a lawyer about a possible claim starts a separate one-month period, so the notice is usually prepared early rather than left near the nine-month mark.

If the notice is late, the obligation to give it continues, but a reasonable excuse for the delay must be provided. That does not necessarily end a claim, though the safer course is to give notice in time. Court proceedings themselves must generally be started within 3 years of the date the cause of action arose, under s 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). Different timing rules can apply for children and people under a legal incapacity, so it is sensible to get specific advice early rather than assume a deadline. Our guide to CTP claim time limits in Queensland works through these dates in more detail.

When the vehicle cannot be identified or is uninsured

What matters here is whether the vehicle, or its CTP insurer, can be identified, not simply whether the driver is known. If the registration is recorded, the claim ordinarily proceeds against that vehicle’s CTP insurer even if the driver drove off. Where the vehicle itself cannot be identified, for example a hit-and-run with no registration, or where the vehicle is uninsured, the claim is instead made against the Nominal Defendant, a statutory body that stands in the place of a CTP insurer: see s 31(1). For an uninsured vehicle, the Act applies only if the accident happened on a road or in a public place: see s 5(2).

Two further points matter. The notice deadline is shorter: notice to the Nominal Defendant for an unidentified vehicle must be given within 3 months, and the claim is barred entirely if it is not given within 9 months. And for an unidentified vehicle you must show that proper inquiry and search were made to identify it, which is one reason prompt reporting matters. These claims are covered in our guide to hit-and-run and Nominal Defendant claims in Queensland.

Contributory negligence: when a pedestrian is partly to blame

One of the most common issues in pedestrian claims is the argument that the injured person was partly responsible. This is called contributory negligence. Under s 10 of the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), where a person is injured partly through their own failure to take reasonable care and partly through someone else’s wrong, the claim is not defeated, but the damages are reduced to the extent the court considers just and equitable having regard to the person’s share in the responsibility. Under s 23 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), a pedestrian’s own care is judged by the same standard used to assess the driver: that of a reasonable person in the pedestrian’s position, based on what that person knew or ought reasonably to have known at the time.

Typical scenarios include crossing against a red pedestrian signal, stepping onto the road from between parked cars, crossing while looking at a phone, or crossing well away from a nearby crossing. None of these automatically ends a claim, because the driver usually still owes and can breach a duty to keep a lookout and drive to the conditions, but they can lead a court to apportion part of the responsibility to the pedestrian and reduce the damages. Although the general rule reduces damages rather than removing them, s 24 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) allows a court to reduce by up to 100% where just and equitable, so in a clear case a reduction that defeats the claim is possible.

Intoxication is treated specifically. Where an injured pedestrian was intoxicated at the time and the insurer alleges contributory negligence, s 47 presumes contributory negligence and requires a reduction of at least 25%. The pedestrian can rebut that presumption only by proving that the intoxication did not contribute to their own want of care, or that it was not self-induced. The 25% figure is a floor, not a ceiling; a court can order a greater reduction where the facts warrant it.

The evidence that matters after a pedestrian collision

Because a pedestrian claim can turn on fault and on the extent of any contributory negligence, the evidence available early is often what a dispute is decided on. The following are commonly relevant:

  • Medical treatment and an accurate history. Early treatment records document the injury and record how it happened.
  • A police report. A police report documents the incident, the location and the circumstances as recorded at the time, and is particularly relevant if the driver did not stop.
  • The vehicle and driver details. The registration number, the make and colour of the vehicle, and the driver’s name and contact details if they are available.
  • Witnesses. Independent witnesses can be significant on questions of fault and contributory negligence, and their details are hard to recover later.
  • A record of the scene. Photographs of the location, road markings, signals and any injuries, and a note of what happened while it is fresh.

It is also worth being careful with social media after an accident, because posts can be used to question the extent of an injury. Our article on how social media can affect a personal injury claim explains why.

Published 29 July 2026.

Where this leaves an injured pedestrian

Whether an injured pedestrian in Queensland can claim through the CTP scheme depends on establishing that the driver, or another person, was negligent. Any claim is met by the CTP insurer of the vehicle involved or, where the vehicle is unidentified or uninsured, by the Nominal Defendant, and it can be reduced if the pedestrian was partly at fault. The first notice deadline is measured in months, not years, so it is worth getting advice early, while a clear record of what happened is still available.

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.

Get in touch →

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.