Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited: 5 Sep 2002

Austlii (High Court of Australia) Tame v New South Wales
Negligence – Duty of care – Psychiatric injury – Motor accident – Clerical error by police constable in recording driver’s blood alcohol content – Psychotic depressive illness caused by driver learning of mistake – Whether duty of care owed by police constable to driver – Whether psychiatric injury reasonably foreseeable – Whether sole determinant of duty – Other control mechanisms for imposition of duty – Normal fortitude – Sudden shock – Direct perception – Immediate aftermath.
Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited
Negligence – Duty of care – Psychiatric injury – Death of child – Assurances of constant supervision of child made by employer to parents – Whether duty of care owed by employer of child to parents – Whether psychiatric injury reasonably foreseeable – Whether sole determinant of duty – Other control mechanisms for imposition of duty – Normal fortitude – Sudden shock – Direct perception – Immediate aftermath.
Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ
[2002] HCA 35, [2002] 211 CLR 317, [2002] 191 ALR 449, [2002] 76 ALJR 1348
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
CitedZurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.566221