-
Bourhill v Young
DECISION: NOT SUCCESSFUL • Lack of proximity
• Lack of causal proximity (no direct evidence that the accident contributed to the n/s and still birth of her baby)
• A cause and effect relationship was not proven
• Lack of circumstantial proximity (didn’t know the motorcyclist or see the accident)
• He could not reasonably anticipate that the noise of a collision would cause shock to a person standing behind a tram car. -
Jaensch v Coffey
DECISION: SUCCESSFUL • Nervous shock was caused by the driver’s neg
• Caught up in the immediate aftermath of the accident, hence damage was not too remote
• Circumstantial and causal proximity was evident
• Because it was reasonably foreseeable that his wife might suffer nervous shock if he caused an accident. -
Spence v Percy
DECISION: NOT SUCCESSFUL • Time lapse between the nervous shock and the accident
• Other things going on in the mother’s life that could have also caused stress and nervous shock
• Damage was too remote from the negligent act -
Annetts and Another v Australian Stations Pty
DECISION: NOT SUCESSFUL, APPEALED TO SUCCESSFULL • They were not present at the incident which caused their son’s death. • Court found that there should be no rigid distinction between psychiatric injuries suffered in such circumstances and a similar injury suffered by parents who saw their child run down by a motor vehicle. -
Tame v New South Wales
DECISION: NOT SUCCESSFUL • The woman’s injuries were not reasonably foreseeable
• A person of normal fortitude would not suffer psychiatric illness upon learning that a police report had recorded a wrong blood alcohol level -
Gifford -v- Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Limited
DECISION: DOC OWED, INJURY YET TO PROVE • Although it was not within the children’s sight or hearing – the employer owed a duty of care to the employee’s children to avoid them injury. -
Burke v State of New South
DECISION: NOT SUCCESSFUL • He did not witness the landslide nor did he see or hear any victims die
• The court held that what must be witnessed by the plaintiff has to take place at the scene, with the scene being the place where the relevant action happens
• Master Malpass ruled that Burke’s proximity to the site was not sufficiently immediate to fall within the statutory provision of “witness[ing] at the scene, the victim being killed, injured or put in peril.”
• The phrase 'to be put in peri -
Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service
DECISION: SUCCESSFUL, UNTIL APPEALED THEN UNSUCESSFUL • Originally found that the service was negligent and had not adequately trained supervisors to detect warning signs • The defendant appealed arguing that even if training of the kind referred to had been established, the plaintiff's supervisors could not have been expected to recognise any signs of psychological dysfunction in him. • The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's action.
