Tame v State of NSW, Annetts & Anor v Ausn Stations Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered two appeals concerning claims for nervous shock. In *Tame v State of New South Wales*, the appellant, Ms Tame, claimed damages for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of a police officer's negligent handling of a motor vehicle accident investigation, which included a blood alcohol test that was later found to be erroneous. In *Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd*, the respondents, Mr and Mrs Annetts, claimed damages for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of the negligent failure of their son's employer to supervise him adequately while he was working alone on a remote cattle station, leading to his death.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the scope of the duty of care owed by a defendant to a plaintiff in relation to psychiatric injury. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the existing common law principles governing claims for nervous shock were adequate, or if they required modification to accommodate the circumstances of these cases. This involved considering the foreseeability of psychiatric injury and the nature of the relationship 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 be based on the ordinary principles of negligence, focusing on the reasonable foreseeability of the plaintiff suffering a recognisable psychiatric illness. The Court rejected the rigid categories and restrictive rules that had previously governed nervous shock claims, such as the requirement for the plaintiff to have been in fear of their own physical safety or to have witnessed a sudden shocking event. Instead, the focus shifted to whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's conduct would cause the plaintiff to suffer a psychiatric illness, taking into account the plaintiff's individual vulnerability where known. The Court found that in *Tame*, the psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable, while in *Annetts*, it was.

Consequently, the appeal in *Tame v State of New South Wales* was dismissed, and the appeal in *Annetts & Anor v Australian Stations Pty Ltd* was allowed.