Reported Decision:
[2001] Aust Torts Reports 81-619
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: AMP v RTA & Anor; RTA v AMP & Anor [2001] NSWCA 186 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40319/00; 40399/00 HEARING DATE(S): 16/05/01 JUDGMENT DATE:
2 August 2001PARTIES :
AMP General Insurance Ltd (Appellant CA 40319/00; First Respondent CA 40399/00)
Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW (Appellant CA 40399/00); First Respondent CA 40319/00)
Margaret Boxsell (Second Respondent)JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Heydon JA at 41; Davies AJA at 170
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :DC 2859/98 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Coleman DCJ
COUNSEL: J D Hislop QC/K Andrews (AMP General Insurance Limited)
J A McIntyre SC (Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW)
M L Williams SC/Ms P M McDonald (Second Respondent)SOLICITORS: Gillis Delaney Brown (AMP General Insurance Limited)
Hunt & Hunt (Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW)
Carroll & O'Dea (Second Respondent)CATCHWORDS: Torts - Negligence - Liability - Foreseeability - Causation - Remoteness - Whether employer liable to deceased employee’s widow for damage caused to her by employee’s suicide - Employer breached duty of care to employee causing back injury - Employee applied for extension of limitation period in order to bring action for damages for back injury - Employee suffered stress from cross-examination in the hearing of application - Employee developed depression and committed suicide shortly after hearing - D LEGISLATION CITED: Compensation to Relatives Act 1897
Fatal Accidents Act 1846
Fatal Accidents Act 1976
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934
Motor Accidents Act 1988
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (UK)
Workmen's Compensation Act 1925 (UK)CASES CITED: See attached DECISION: See paragraphs 168 and 169
CASES CITED
Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd
Avoushadi v CIC Insurance Ltd
(1996) 23 MVR 385
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare
Bird v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd
(1979) 53 WCR 327
Campbelltown City Council v Mackay
Chappel v Hart
Chester v Council of The Municipality of Waverley
Church v Dugdale and Adams Ltd
(1929) BWCC 444
Commonwealth of Australia v McLean
Coyne v Citizen Finance Ltd
Donoghue v Stevenson
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd
Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
Grime v Fletcher
Haber v Walker
[1963] VR 339
Holdlen v Walsh
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Jaensch v Coffey
Kavanagh v Akhtar
King v Associated Battery Makers of Australia Pty Ltd
(1954) 28 WCR 105
Kirkham v Chief Constable of The Greater Manchester Police
Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates
Mahony v J Kruschich (Demolitions) Pty Ltd
March v…
Continue reading AMP v RTA & Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- AMP v RTA & Anor [2001] NSWCA 186
- Case
- [2001] NSWCA 186
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
AMP Limited (AMP) appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning its liability to the widow of a deceased employee, Ms RTA. The dispute arose from the employee's suicide, which Ms RTA alleged was caused by AMP's negligence. AMP had breached a duty of care to the employee, resulting in a back injury. The employee had sought an extension of the limitation period to pursue a claim for this injury. During the hearing of that application, the employee experienced significant stress from cross-examination, which allegedly led to depression and ultimately his suicide shortly thereafter.
The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine whether AMP was liable to Ms RTA for damages arising from the employee's suicide. Specifically, the court had to consider whether AMP's breach of duty in causing the initial back injury was a legally relevant cause of the employee's subsequent depression and suicide, and whether such an outcome was a foreseeable consequence of AMP's negligence. The central legal issues revolved around the principles of causation and remoteness in negligence law, particularly in the context of psychiatric injury and suicide following a physical injury.
The court found that while AMP had breached its duty of care to the employee, causing the back injury, this breach was not the legal cause of the employee's suicide. The court reasoned that the stress experienced during the cross-examination, which precipitated the depression and suicide, was an intervening event that broke the chain of causation. The court applied the principles of foreseeability and causation, holding that the suicide was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial negligent act of causing the back injury. The stress of the legal proceedings, and the resulting psychiatric harm, were considered to be too remote from the original breach of duty.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Supreme Court were set aside.
The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine whether AMP was liable to Ms RTA for damages arising from the employee's suicide. Specifically, the court had to consider whether AMP's breach of duty in causing the initial back injury was a legally relevant cause of the employee's subsequent depression and suicide, and whether such an outcome was a foreseeable consequence of AMP's negligence. The central legal issues revolved around the principles of causation and remoteness in negligence law, particularly in the context of psychiatric injury and suicide following a physical injury.
The court found that while AMP had breached its duty of care to the employee, causing the back injury, this breach was not the legal cause of the employee's suicide. The court reasoned that the stress experienced during the cross-examination, which precipitated the depression and suicide, was an intervening event that broke the chain of causation. The court applied the principles of foreseeability and causation, holding that the suicide was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial negligent act of causing the back injury. The stress of the legal proceedings, and the resulting psychiatric harm, were considered to be too remote from the original breach of duty.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Supreme Court were set aside.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraphs 168 and 169
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.