Caffrey v AAI Limited

Case [2019] QSC 7

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Caffrey v AAI Limited [2019] QSC 7

PARTIES:

DAVID PAUL CAFFREY

(plaintiff)

v
AAI LIMITED (ABN 48 005 297 807)

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 6587/16

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 January 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9, 10 and 11 October 2018

JUDGE:

Flanagan J

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $1,092,948.

2.   The parties to be heard as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – PURE PSYCHIATRIC HARM – COMMON LAW – where the plaintiff police officer was deployed to the scene of a fatal motor vehicle accident – where the accident involved a single motor vehicle and the driver was the sole occupant of that vehicle – where the accident was caused by the driver’s negligence – where the driver died at the scene in the presence of the plaintiff and the driver’s parents – where the plaintiff sustained a psychiatric injury in the form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of his experiences at the scene – where, following the accident, the plaintiff was dismissed from his employment with the Queensland Police Service on the basis of medical incapacity – where the defendant to the action is the deceased driver’s insurer – whether the deceased driver owed the plaintiff a duty of care – whether policy considerations arising from the plaintiff’s status at the time of the accident, as a police officer and holder of statutory office, bar the plaintiff’s claim

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff concedes he had, at the time of the accident, a pre-existing vulnerability to psychiatric harm – where the plaintiff, subsequent to that motor vehicle accident and prior to his dismissal from the Queensland Police Service taking formal effect, attended at a second motor vehicle accident while off-duty – where the second accident involved multiple child fatalities – whether, and to what extent, the second accident contributed to or aggravated the plaintiff’s PTSD – whether the plaintiff would have developed symptoms of PTSD as a consequence of his exposure to general workplace stressors, irrespective of his attendance at the two accidents – whether any award of damages should be discounted, and by what amount, to account for these contingencies 

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 5
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 5, s 52
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 2.3, s 2.4

ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook (2008) 72 NSWLR 318; [2008] NSWCA 161; distinguished
Béchard v Haliburton Estate (1991) 5 OR (3d) 512 (CA); (1991) 84 DLR (4th) 668; considered
Bowditch v McEwan & Ors (2001) 35 MVR 168; [2001] QSC 448; considered
Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar (2009) 75 NSWLR 649; [2009] NSWCA 258; considered
Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912; [1967] 2…

Continue reading Caffrey v AAI Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Caffrey v AAI Limited [2019] QSC 7
Case
[2019] QSC 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Caffrey v AAI Limited, the plaintiff, a police officer, was deployed to the scene of a fatal motor vehicle accident. The accident involved a single motor vehicle with the driver, who was the sole occupant, perishing at the scene in the presence of the plaintiff and the driver’s parents. The plaintiff subsequently developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of his experiences at the scene. The defendant, the deceased driver’s insurer, was sued for negligence. The central issues were whether the deceased driver owed the plaintiff a duty of care and if the plaintiff's status as a police officer at the time of the accident barred his claim.

The court had to determine whether the deceased driver owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, given the circumstances of the accident and the plaintiff's role as a police officer. Additionally, the court examined whether policy considerations stemming from the plaintiff's status at the time of the accident precluded his claim. The court also considered whether the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerability to psychiatric harm, his attendance at a second motor vehicle accident involving multiple child fatalities, and potential exposure to general workplace stressors contributed to or aggravated his PTSD. Furthermore, the court assessed whether any award of damages should be discounted to account for these contingencies.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the deceased driver owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, notwithstanding the plaintiff's status as a police officer. The court concluded that the policy considerations did not bar the plaintiff's claim. Regarding the second motor vehicle accident and the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerability, the court determined that these factors did not significantly contribute to or aggravate the plaintiff's PTSD. The court awarded the plaintiff $1,092,948 in damages against the defendant. The parties were to be heard regarding the costs of the proceedings.

The court's final order was a judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $1,092,948, with the parties to be heard on the matter of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $1,092,948.

2. The parties to be heard as to costs.

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.