References: [2002] HCA 35, [2002] 211 CLR 317, [2002] 191 ALR 449, [2002] 76 ALJR 1348
Links: Austlii
Coram: Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ
Ratio: 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.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch -v- International Energy Group Ltd SC (Bailii, [2015] UKSC 33, [2015] Lloyd’s Rep IR 598, [2015] WLR(D) 233, [2015] 2 WLR 1471, [2016] AC 509, Bailii Summary, WLRD , UKSC 2013/0057, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 01-Jul-16
Ref: 566221