AAI Limited v Caffrey

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.