AAI Limited v Caffrey - [2019] QCA 293

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

AAI Limited v Caffrey [2019] QCA 293

PARTIES:

AAI LIMITED
ABN 48 005 297 807
(appellant)
v
DAVID PAUL CAFFREY
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1992 of 2019
SC No 6587 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 7 (Flanagan J)

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 August 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Philippides and McMurdo JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – OTHER PARTICULAR CLAIMANTS, DEFENDANTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES – POLICE – where the respondent was a Senior Constable in the Queensland Police Service – where the respondent was called to attend a scene where a car had crashed into a tree – where the driver of the car had been driving at excessive speed while intoxicated by methamphetamine, amphetamine and marijuana – where the respondent rendered first aid to the driver who was critically injured – where the driver died soon afterwards – where the respondent was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of attending the crash – where the respondent sued the appellant insurer pursuant to s 52(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) claiming that, as a result of the driver’s negligent driving, he suffered psychiatric injury – where the substantial issue at trial was whether the driver owed the respondent a duty of care to avoid causing him the psychiatric harm that he had suffered by reason of his attendance, in the course of his duties as a police officer, at the scene of the crash – where the learned trial judge held that the driver owed the respondent such a duty – where the learned trial judge found that the driver had been negligent and that his breach of duty had caused the respondent’s psychiatric injuries – where the appellant submits that the learned trial judge erred in holding that a duty of care could be owed by a person who causes a traumatic event, not to cause pure psychiatric harm to a person who, in the course of their occupation, are exposed to the highly distressing aftermath of a traumatic event – where the appellant does not challenge the principles governing liability for causing psychiatric harm to rescuers – where the appellant accepts that the respondent had satisfied all those common law requirements – where the appellant submits that the respondent’s status as a police officer denied him a right to recover because of policy considerations which render the foreseeability of injury unreasonable – whether the principles that govern the right of rescuers to recover damages for injuries extends to police officers in the course of their occupation

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 52(2)(b)

Hale v London Underground Ltd [1993] PIQR Q30, cited
Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146, explained
Hirst v Nominal Defendant [2005] 2 Qd R 133; [2005] QCA 65, followed
Jausnik v Nominal Defendant (No 5) (2016)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AAI Limited v Caffrey

Details

AGLC: AAI Limited v Caffrey [2019] QCA 293
Case: [2019] QCA 293
Decision Date: 10 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AAI Limited has appealed against a decision of the Queensland District Court, which found that Senior Constable Caffrey of the Queensland Police Service was owed a duty of care by the driver of a car that crashed into a tree, resulting in the driver's death. The driver was found to have been driving at excessive speed while intoxicated by methamphetamine, amphetamine and marijuana. Senior Constable Caffrey attended the scene of the crash and rendered first aid to the driver, who was critically injured and died soon after. Senior Constable Caffrey was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of attending the crash. He sued AAI Limited, the appellant, pursuant to section 52(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), claiming that the driver's negligent driving caused his psychiatric injury. The central issue at trial was whether the driver owed the Senior Constable a duty of care to avoid causing him psychiatric harm by reason of his attendance, in the course of his duties as a police officer, at the scene of the crash. The learned trial judge held that the driver owed the Senior Constable such a duty and found that the driver had been negligent and that his breach of duty had caused the Senior Constable's psychiatric injuries.

The appellant submits that the learned trial judge erred in holding that a duty of care could be owed by a person who causes a traumatic event, not to cause pure psychiatric harm to a person who, in the course of their occupation, are exposed to the highly distressing aftermath of a traumatic event. The appellant does not challenge the principles governing liability for causing psychiatric harm to rescuers. The appellant accepts that the Senior Constable had satisfied all those common law requirements. The appellant submits that the Senior Constable's status as a police officer denied him a right to recover because of policy considerations which render the foreseeability of injury unreasonable. The court was required to determine whether the principles that govern the right of rescuers to recover damages for injuries extends to police officers in the course of their occupation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court held that the principles governing the right of rescuers to recover damages for injuries apply equally to police officers in the course of their occupation. The court found that the driver owed the Senior Constable a duty of care to avoid causing him psychiatric harm by reason of his attendance, in the course of his duties as a police officer, at the scene of the crash. The court found that the driver had been negligent and that his breach of duty had caused the Senior Constable's psychiatric injuries. The court held that there was no policy consideration that precluded the Senior Constable from recovering damages for his psychiatric injury. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the learned trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	AAI Limited v Caffrey [2019] QCA 293
PARTIES:	AAI LIMITED ABN 48 005 297 807 (appellant) v DAVID PAUL CAFFREY (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 1992 of 2019 SC No 6587 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 7 (Flanagan J)
DELIVERED ON:	10 December 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 August 2019
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Philippides and McMurdo JJA
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – OTHER PARTICULAR CLAIMANTS, DEFENDANTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES – POLICE – where the respondent was a Senior Constable in the Queensland Police Service – where the respondent was called to attend a scene where a car had crashed into a tree – where the driver of the car had been driving at excessive speed while intoxicated by methamphetamine, amphetamine and marijuana – where the respondent rendered first aid to the driver who was critically injured – where the driver died soon afterwards – where the respondent was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of attending the crash – where the respondent sued the appellant insurer pursuant to s 52(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) claiming that, as a result of the driver’s negligent driving, he suffered psychiatric injury – where the substantial issue at trial was whether the driver owed the respondent a duty of care to avoid causing him the psychiatric harm that he had suffered by reason of his attendance, in the course of his duties as a police officer, at the scene of the crash – where the learned trial judge held that the driver owed the respondent such a duty – where the learned trial judge found that the driver had been negligent and that his breach of duty had caused the respondent’s psychiatric injuries – where the appellant submits that the learned trial judge erred in holding that a duty of care could be owed by a person who causes a traumatic event, not to cause pure psychiatric harm to a person who, in the course of their occupation, are exposed to the highly distressing aftermath of a traumatic event – where the appellant does not challenge the principles governing liability for causing psychiatric harm to rescuers – where the appellant accepts that the respondent had satisfied all those common law requirements – where the appellant submits that the respondent’s status as a police officer denied him a right to recover because of policy considerations which render the foreseeability of injury unreasonable – whether the principles that govern the right of rescuers to recover damages for injuries extends to police officers in the course of their occupation Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 52(2)(b) Hale v London Underground Ltd [1993] PIQR Q30, cited Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146, explained Hirst v Nominal Defendant [2005] 2 Qd R 133; [2005] QCA 65, followed Jausnik v Nominal Defendant (No 5) (2016)…