Successful defence of claim for psychiatric injury on the basis that it was not reasonably foreseeable to the first defendant that the plaintiff would suffer a psychiatric injury on hearing (via phone calls) that her partner and three children were involved (but uninjured) in a minor accident and where other external factors were causative of the psychiatric injury.
In issue
- Whether the first defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (who was not present at the accident scene) and if so, whether the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition was caused by the first defendant’s breach of duty owed to the plaintiff.
The background
On 2 August 2016, the plaintiff’s partner and three of her children were involved in a minor rear-end accident on the Gateway Motorway at Eight Mile Plains, when Mr Fu (the first defendant) suddenly swerved in front of the plaintiff’s partner’s vehicle at a lower speed resulting in a collision (the accident).
No one was physically injured in the accident and only minor property damage was sustained; however, the plaintiff’s youngest daughter had a mild panic attack at the scene of the accident and was taken to hospital as a precaution.
The plaintiff (who was a personal injury lawyer with her own practice) was at work at the time and did not witness the accident. She alleged she received three phone calls from the scene of the accident – firstly, from her older daughter confirming the family had been in an accident and confirming everyone was okay; secondly from an ambulance officer on scene advising everyone was okay; and finally from the same ambulance officer a short time later advising that her younger daughter was hyperventilating and would be transported to the Logan Hospital as a precaution. The plaintiff alleged she was on her way to the accident scene when she received the third call.
The plaintiff alleged that over time, she developed a psychiatric injury (major depressive disorder) which she alleged arose a result of the accident, receiving the initial phone calls about it (imagining the harm her family had suffered) and having to assist her partner and children with their own legal claims for psychiatric injury as a result of the first defendant’s negligence (and all of which were handled by the plaintiff’s own law firm). She did not seek treatment or report any psychiatric symptoms until 17 June 2017, about 10.5 months after the accident occurred.
The plaintiff alleged the first defendant owed her a duty to take reasonable care while driving not to cause an accident, or any psychiatric injury to the plaintiff in finding out about her family members being involved in an accident. She submitted the risk that she would suffer a psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable having regard to the close nature of the relationship to her family members involved in the accident.
Evidence adduced at trial indicated there were many other stressors in the plaintiff’s life before and after the accident many of which were not disclosed to the assessing psychiatrists. These included issues with her daughters’ attendance at school; her own mother’s health issues; her eldest daughter suffering a serious head injury in a horse riding accident in October 2016; relationship difficulties with her partner; and the stress experienced in dealing with her family member’s claims after the accident. The plaintiff did not disclose many of these stressors to the assessing psychiatrists, Dr Lotz (for the plaintiff) and Dr Steinberg (for the defendants).
Decision at trial
The key issues at trial were:
- whether it was reasonably foreseeable to the first defendant that his negligent driving might cause the plaintiff to suffer a psychiatric injury as a result of her being told that members of her family had been involved in a minor accident (when she herself did not witness the accident), which would give rise to a breach of duty of care, and
- if a duty of care was owed by the first defendant, whether the plaintiff’s recognised psychiatric injury was caused by the first defendant’s breach of that duty owed to the plaintiff.
At trial, Justice Crowley held that it was not reasonably foreseeable to the first defendant that the plaintiff (who did not witness the accident) might suffer a psychiatric injury in circumstances where the accident was minor and no one involved suffered physical injuries, particularly where the plaintiff was advised from the scene of the accident that everyone was okay. Therefore, the first defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care of the kind alleged.
As to causation, while Justice Crowley accepted the plaintiff suffered from a recognisable psychiatric illness, he concluded that the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition was caused by 'an accumulation of life stressors' and not as a result of the accident or being notified about the accident, as the plaintiff alleged, particularly noting the delay between the accident and the plaintiff first experiencing psychiatric symptoms many months after the accident. He considered the plaintiff’s management of her family’s claims post-accident compounded the impact of her stress but that in itself did not establish causation.
Judgment was given in favour of the defendants.
Implications for you
The decision illustrates that a court will take into consideration the particular circumstances of the accident (including the impact and the nature of any injuries sustained by those involved) when determining the scope of an at-fault driver’s duty of care and whether this ought to be extended to relatives of injured parties who are not present at the scene.
In this case, where there was no reported physical injury or substantial impact, the court was not convinced that the first defendant’s duty of care ought to be extended to the plaintiff and therefore, she was unsuccessful with her claim.
