Bersee v State of Victoria

The plaintiff, Bersee, brought a claim against the State of Victoria, alleging that the defendant breached their duty of care towards her by imposing unreasonable and excessive workloads while she was employed as a teacher. This resulted in her suffering psychiatric injury. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary judge found that the respondent had not breached their duty of care, and Bersee appealed this decision.

The key legal issues for the court to determine were whether the respondent breached their duty of care to Bersee by imposing excessive workloads, and if such a psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable. The court also needed to consider whether the respondent took reasonable steps to avoid the risk of psychiatric injury. Bersee argued that the workloads were unreasonable and excessive, and that the respondent should have reasonably foreseen that such workloads would cause her psychiatric injury. The respondent maintained that they had taken reasonable steps to avoid the risk of psychiatric injury and that Bersee’s psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable.

The court considered the relevant case law, including Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd and Kozarov v Victoria, and found that the respondent had not breached their duty of care to Bersee. The court held that the respondent had taken reasonable steps to avoid the risk of psychiatric injury, and that Bersee’s psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable. The court found that the respondent had provided Bersee with reasonable support and resources, and that the workloads were not excessive or unreasonable. The court held that the respondent had not breached their duty of care, and dismissed Bersee’s appeal.

The court found that the respondent had not breached their duty of care, and dismissed the appeal. The court did not make any further orders.