Sheehan v SRA; Wicks v SRA
Case
•
[2009] NSWCA 261
•31 August 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sheehan v SRA; Wicks v SRA [2009] NSWCA 261
[2009] NSWCA 261
31 August 2009
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Damages
-
Statutory Construction
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Stannic Securities Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 249
Cases Citing This Decision
16
Wicks v State Rail Authority (NSW)
[2010] HCA 22
Watson v State of NSW
[2021] NSWSC 765
Ibrahimi v Commonwealth of Australia (No 9)
[2017] NSWSC 1051
Cases Cited
34
Statutory Material Cited
1
Chapman v Hearse
[1961] HCA 46
Chapman v Hearse
[1961] HCA 46
Malika Holdings Pty ltd v Stretton
[2001] HCA 14