Caffrey v AAI Limited

Case [2017] QSC 339

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Caffrey v AAI Limited & Anor [2017] QSC 339

PARTIES:

DAVID PAUL CAFFREY

(plaintiff)

v
AAI LIMITED (ABN 48 005 297 807)

(first defendant)
and
RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED (ABN 50 009 704 152)
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

S6587 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 November 2017 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2017

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

The application is dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER CASES – whether the allegedly negligent driver in a fatal crash owed a duty of care to avoid psychiatric harm to a police officer who attended at the scene of the accident and observed its aftermath

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS –– where the plaintiff claims psychiatric injuries from attending a crash scene while performing duties as a police officer – where the defendant denies the driver owed a duty of care to avoid a risk of psychiatric harm to the plaintiff – where the plaintiff contends that this denial is bad in law and  should be struck out - where in the alternative the plaintiff seeks the preliminary determination of the question of whether the alleged duty of care was owed in the circumstances pleaded by him – whether the court should exercise its discretion to strike out the pleaded defence or its discretion to order the question be separately decided in advance of the trial

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171

Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552; [2000] HCA 41 cited
Bowditch v McEwan [2001] QSC 448; [2003] 2 Qd R 615 cited
Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioner (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1 cited
General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69 cited
King v Philcox (2015) 255 CLR 304; [2015] HCA 19 cited
Lee v Abedian [2016] QSC 92; [2017] 1 Qd R 549 cited
New South Wales v Spearpoint [2009] NSWCA 233 cited
Reading Australia Pty Ltd v AMP (1999) 217 ALR 495 cited
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28 cited
Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (2010) 241 CLR 60; [2010] HCA 22 cited
Williams and Humbert Ltd v W & H Trade Marks [1986] 1 AC 368 followed

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor QC and D J Murphy for the applicant/plaintiff

G W Diehm QC for the respondent/first defendant

SOLICITORS:

Sciacca’s Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff

Jensen McConaghy for the respondent/first defendant

HIS HONOUR:   This is a proceeding in which the plaintiff applicant sues the compulsory insurer of one vehicle, and the compulsory insurer of another vehicle, that were involved in accidents on different dates.  Presently I am concerned only with the first accident,…

Continue reading Caffrey v AAI Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Caffrey v AAI Limited [2017] QSC 339
Case
[2017] QSC 339
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Caffrey v AAI Limited, the plaintiff, a police officer, sought damages for psychiatric injury sustained after witnessing the aftermath of a fatal motor vehicle accident. The accident was caused by the defendant's employee, who was allegedly negligent. The defendant denied that the driver owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to avoid causing psychiatric harm. The plaintiff argued that this denial was bad in law and sought to have it struck out. Alternatively, the plaintiff applied for a preliminary determination of whether the driver owed the duty of care in the circumstances pleaded.

The court examined the legal principles governing the duty of care in negligence actions, particularly in cases involving psychiatric harm. The court considered the established principles from precedent cases that generally limit the circumstances in which a duty of care can be owed for psychiatric harm, particularly when the harm results from witnessing the aftermath of an accident rather than directly experiencing the event. The court concluded that the denial of the duty of care was not so bad in law as to warrant being struck out. The court also declined to exercise its discretion to order a separate determination of the duty of care issue, finding that it was appropriate for the question to be resolved at the trial.

The application to strike out the pleaded defence and to determine the duty of care issue separately was dismissed. The court determined that these issues were best left to be resolved at the trial of the substantive matter. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs associated with the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed with 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.