Bunyan v Jordan

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, sued for damages after suffering shock and illness allegedly caused by the defendant's conduct. The dispute arose when the plaintiff observed the defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, handling a loaded revolver and heard him state he intended to shoot someone. Later, the plaintiff heard a shot fired and subsequently witnessed the defendant tear up banknotes, making ominous remarks. The plaintiff claimed negligence, breach of contract, assault, and wilful harm.

The High Court was required to determine whether the facts presented were sufficient to establish any of the causes of action pleaded by the plaintiff. Specifically, the court considered whether the defendant's actions were such that injury to the plaintiff could reasonably have been foreseen, and whether a legal duty was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff to avoid causing such harm. The court also examined whether the defendant's conduct amounted to a wilful act calculated to cause injury, even if not directed at the plaintiff personally.

The majority of the High Court, comprising Latham C.J., Rich, Dixon, and McTiernan JJ., held that the facts were insufficient to constitute any of the pleaded causes of action. Their reasoning centred on the principle that a defendant is generally only liable for consequences that a reasonable person might have anticipated. The court found no evidence that the defendant's conduct was likely to cause serious illness to a person in the plaintiff's position, nor that the defendant was aware of any particular susceptibility of the plaintiff to nervous shock. The actions, while potentially alarming, were not considered to be of a nature that would reasonably lead to the severe illness suffered by the plaintiff. Evatt J. dissented, finding that the evidence could support a jury's conclusion that the defendant wilfully alarmed the plaintiff through his unlawful act, causing her injury.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. There was no order as to costs.