Site icon swarb.co.uk

Jaensch v Coffey; 20 Aug 1984

References: (1984) 55 CLR 549, [1984] 54 ALR 417, [1985] CLY 2326, [1984] HCA 52
Links: Austlii
Coram: Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ
(High Court of Australia) The claimant’s husband was injured. She saw his injuries at hospital and was affected. She claimed damages for her own shock.
Held: The driver owed her a duty of care, and was liable for negligence which caused nervous shock. A finding at first instance that she had normal fortitude, her predisposition to anxiety and depression gave no defence.
Brennan J said: ‘Liability for negligence occasioning nervous shock has not been readily accepted, perhaps because the courts found evidence of psychiatric illness and of its aetiology to be too vague to warrant a finding of a causal relationship between psychiatric illness and careless conduct . . A plaintiff may recover only if the psychiatric illness is the result of physical injury negligently inflicted on him by the defendant or if it is induced by ‘shock’. Psychiatric illness caused in other ways attracts no damages . . I understand ‘shock’ in this context to mean the sudden sensory perception – that is, by seeing, hearing or touching – of a person, thing or event, which is so distressing that the perception of the phenomenon affronts or insults the plaintiff’s mind and causes a recognizable psychiatric illness.’
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

Exit mobile version