Tame v Morgan & Anor, Annetts & Anor v Ausn Stations Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered two appeals concerning claims for nervous shock. In *Tame v New South Wales*, the appellant, Ms Tame, claimed damages for psychiatric injury allegedly suffered as a result of a police officer's negligent misstatement that she had a high blood alcohol reading, which she later discovered to be false. In *Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd*, the respondents, Mr and Mrs Annett, claimed damages for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of the prolonged anxiety and distress they experienced when their teenage son, employed by the appellant, went missing while working in a remote area.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the scope of the duty of care owed by a defendant to a plaintiff in respect of psychiatric injury. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the existing common law principles governing the recovery of damages for nervous shock were adequate, or if they required modification to accommodate the circumstances of these cases. This involved considering the foreseeability of psychiatric harm and the proximity between the parties.

The Court, in a joint judgment, significantly reformulated the common law of negligence concerning psychiatric injury. It held that the test for establishing a duty of care in such cases should not be confined to the narrow categories previously recognised. Instead, the Court affirmed that the general principles of negligence, including the reasonable foreseeability of harm and the existence of a relationship of sufficient proximity between the defendant and the plaintiff, were to be applied. The Court rejected the notion that a plaintiff must demonstrate a "predisposition" to psychiatric illness or that the defendant must have foreseen the precise psychiatric injury suffered. The focus was on whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's conduct could cause the plaintiff to suffer a recognisable psychiatric illness.

In *Tame*, the High Court found that the police officer's negligence did not create a reasonably foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury to Ms Tame, and therefore no duty of care was owed. In *Annetts*, the Court held that the employer's negligence in failing to ensure the safety of their employee in a remote location created a reasonably foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury to the parents, and thus a duty of care was owed. The appeals were therefore dismissed in *Tame* and allowed in *Annetts*.