Tame v Morgan and Anor S83/2001

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Tame v Morgan and Anor*. The dispute concerned a claim for damages for personal injury, specifically psychiatric injury, allegedly suffered by the appellant, Ms. Tame, as a result of the respondents' negligence. The respondents were the owners of a property where Ms. Tame had been involved in a motor vehicle accident.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondents owed a duty of care to Ms. Tame in relation to the psychiatric injury she sustained, and if so, whether that duty was breached. The Court also had to consider the principles governing the recovery of damages for psychiatric injury in negligence, particularly in circumstances where the injury was not a direct physical consequence of the negligent act.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, clarified the law regarding the recovery of damages for psychiatric injury. It held that the test for establishing a duty of care in such cases requires consideration of whether the harm (psychiatric injury) was reasonably foreseeable. The Court emphasised that foreseeability of psychiatric injury is not to be assessed by reference to the particular vulnerability of the plaintiff, but rather by reference to the ordinary fortitude of a reasonable person. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a defendant will only be liable for psychiatric injury if it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct, and that the injury must be a recognisable psychiatric illness. The Court found that the respondents had not breached any duty of care owed to Ms. Tame, as the psychiatric injury suffered by her was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of their actions.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court, and ordered that the appellant's claim be dismissed.