Pure Mental Harm

Which case rejected the requirement that mental harm must be caused by a sudden shock?

• Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring

• Tame v New South Wales

• Annetts v Australian Stations

• Jaensch v Coffey

Which case is the primary authority for the principle, 'sorrow does not sound in damages'?

• Annetts v Australian Stations

• Hinz v Berry

• Jaensch v Coffey

• Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey

Does a person have to be of normal fortitude to recover damages for psychiatric injury?

• Yes, the common law position was amended by s 5S of the CLA.

• No, the common law position established in Tame and Annetts stands.

Can a person claim for emotional distress, anxiety or grief?

• Yes

• No, unless it amounts to a recognised psychiatric illness.

Distinguish between pure and consequential mental harm.

Two factors that should be considered when determining whether mental harm was reasonably foreseeable.

• Pure or consequential mental harm.

• Sudden shock and normal fortitude.

• Closeness of the relationship and direct perception.

What salient features are relevant in determining whether a DoC is owed in pure mental harm cases? How are they relevant?

What are the four steps (in order) that should be followed when determining whether a DoC is owed in cases of pure mental harm?

Do the 'circumstances of the case' contained in CLA s 5S(2) have to be satisfied for a DoC to be owed?

• Yes

• No

Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas (1888): Why was Mrs Coultas unsuccessful in her claim for pure mental harm?