Appeal Outcome: Special leave granted by the High Court, 12 February 2010 s262/2009 s263/2009 [2010] HCATrans 15Judgment reserved, 13 April 2010 [2010] HCATrans 87Appeal allowed with costs, 16 June 2010 [2010] HCA 22
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Sheehan v SRA; Wicks v SRA [2009] NSWCA 261
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 11 June 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
31 August 2009JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Giles JA at 81; McColl JA at 82 DECISION: Each appeal is dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: TORTS – negligence – rescuer- psychiatric injury – whether the defendant owed a rescuer a common law duty of care - TORTS – negligence – psychiatric injury – interpretation of the Civil Liability Act 2002, Pt 3 – whether a rescuer is entitled to damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2002, Pt 3 – meaning of the phrase “the plaintiff witnessed, at the scene, the victim being killed, injured or put in peril” LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 34(2)(b); s 34
Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA), s 33; s 53(1)(a)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas), s 32; s 34
Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), s 5S(2)(b)
Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5B(1), s 5H(1); s 5M(1); s 30(2); Part 3; s 42; s 49
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002, Sch 1; Sch 2
Compensation to Relatives Act 1897, s 4
Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (UK)
Interpretation Act 1987, s 34(1)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944, s 4; Part 3
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, s 3; s 141
Road Transport (General) Act 2005, s 3
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 14.14; r 15.1
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), s 36(a)(i)
Workers Compensation Act 1987, s 151Z
Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), s 72; s 73(2)(a)CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Australian Finance Direct Limited v Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria [2007] HCA 57
Blaxter v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] NSWCA 87
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
Caterpillar of Australia Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 83
Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 2 All ER 945
Chapman v Hearse [1961] HCA 46; (1961) 106 CLR 112
Chester v Waverley Corporation [1939] HCA 25; (1939) 62 CLR 1
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] HCA 2; (1997) 187 CLR 384
Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police; White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455
Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 175; (2001) 51 NSWLR 606
Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 33; (2003) 214 CLR 269
Hambrook v Stokes Bros [1925] 1 KB 141
Harrison v Melhem [2008] NSWCA 67; (2008) 72 NSWLR 380
Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15; (2006) 226 CLR 52
Hawkins v Clayton [1988]…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sheehan v SRA; Wicks v SRA and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2009] NSWCA 261
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal considered appeals by Sheehan and Wicks against the State of New South Wales (SRA). The dispute concerned claims for psychiatric injury suffered by the appellants, who were rescuers, as a result of witnessing a train derailment and its aftermath.
The Court was required to determine whether the SRA owed a common law duty of care to the rescuers, and whether the rescuers were entitled to damages under Part 3 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). Specifically, the Court had to interpret the meaning of the phrase "the plaintiff witnessed, at the scene, the victim being killed, injured or put in peril" within the context of the Act.
The Court held that the SRA did owe a common law duty of care to the rescuers. Furthermore, it was determined that the *Civil Liability Act 2002* did not preclude a claim for psychiatric injury by a rescuer. The Court reasoned that the phrase "the victim being killed, injured or put in peril" encompassed the circumstances faced by the rescuers, who witnessed the immediate aftermath of the derailment and the injuries sustained by passengers. The legislative intent of Part 3 was not to exclude rescuers from recovery for psychiatric injury.
Consequently, each appeal was dismissed with costs.
The Court was required to determine whether the SRA owed a common law duty of care to the rescuers, and whether the rescuers were entitled to damages under Part 3 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). Specifically, the Court had to interpret the meaning of the phrase "the plaintiff witnessed, at the scene, the victim being killed, injured or put in peril" within the context of the Act.
The Court held that the SRA did owe a common law duty of care to the rescuers. Furthermore, it was determined that the *Civil Liability Act 2002* did not preclude a claim for psychiatric injury by a rescuer. The Court reasoned that the phrase "the victim being killed, injured or put in peril" encompassed the circumstances faced by the rescuers, who witnessed the immediate aftermath of the derailment and the injuries sustained by passengers. The legislative intent of Part 3 was not to exclude rescuers from recovery for psychiatric injury.
Consequently, each appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Each appeal 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.