Annetts v McCann

Annetts v McCann concerned a claim for damages for nervous shock brought by the plaintiffs, the parents of a deceased young man, against the defendant, the owner of a property where their son had died in a fall. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had been negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent their son from accessing a dangerous cliff edge on his property, and that this negligence had caused them to suffer psychiatric injury. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the plaintiffs, as parents who had not witnessed the accident or its immediate aftermath, could recover damages for psychiatric injury (nervous shock) arising from the death of their son. This required the court to consider the established common law principles governing claims for nervous shock, particularly the requirements of proximity in terms of relationship, physical proximity to the event, and the suddenness of the shock.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, affirmed the principles established in *Tame v New South Wales* and *Annetts v McCann* (1993) 178 CLR 219, but clarified that the common law should not be unduly constrained by rigid categories. The court held that the plaintiffs' claim was not barred simply because they did not witness the accident or its immediate aftermath. Instead, the court focused on whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, and whether the psychiatric injury suffered by the plaintiffs was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach of that duty. The court found that the plaintiffs' relationship with their son, their proximity to the event (being informed of the death shortly after), and the sudden and tragic nature of the event were sufficient to establish a duty of care and foreseeability of harm.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for negligence. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a new trial on the question of liability and damages.