LA2020 Workshop 4

Pure psychiatric injury refers to such injury occurring independently of any physical injury to the plaintiff.

• False

• True

In the context of pure psychiatric injury, what is an aftermath case?

• Where the plaintiff did not directly witness the negligent conduct, but did directly witness the consequences of that conduct.

• Where the plaintiff directly witnessed the negligent conduct, but did not directly witness the consequences of that conduct.

• Where the plaintiff read about the negligent conduct in social media.

In Tame, Annetts, the High Court established a new test for whether a duty of care was owed in circumstances where the plaintiff has suffered pure psychiatric harm. The test was that:

• The general principles of reasonable foreseeability are not applicable

• The general principles of reasonable foreseeability should apply

  AND

  Requirements of sudden shock, direct perception and normal fortitude are no longer exclusionary rules.

• The general principles of reasonable foreseeability should not apply

  AND

  Requirements of sudden shock, direct perception and normal fortitude must be satisfied.

• Requirements of sudden shock, direct perception and normal fortitude must be satisfied.

As a result of Tame, Annetts, It is no longer a requirement that the plaintiff be a person of “normal” emotional health and psychological fortitude.

• False

• True

Tame, Annetts is authority that if the plaintiff was not of normal fortitude, then this would be considered under the reasonable foreseeability test.

• True

• False

The High Court majority in Tame, Annetts held that:

• there was no need for the plaintiff to experience sudden shock in order to succeed in a claim for pure psychiatric harm

• the plaintiff must have experienced sudden shock in order to succeed in a claim for pure psychiatric harm

The High Court in Tame, Annetts retained two exclusionary rules. One of the them was:

• the harm suffered needs to be a psychiatric illness recognised as legitimate by TV medical celebrities.

• The harm suffered needs to be a recognised psychiatric illness.

• The harm suffered need not be a recognised psychiatric illness.

• The harm suffered needs to be a psychiatric illness recognised as legitimate by a majority of the general public.

The High Court in Tame, Annetts retained two exclusionary rules. One of the exclusionary rules relates to aftermath cases. What was the exclusionary rule retained for aftermath cases?

• a duty of care can be only owed where the plaintiff had a secret crush on the person who was injured by the defendant's negligence.

• a duty of care can be only owed where the plaintiff was a parent of the person who was injured by the defendant's negligence.

• a duty of care can be only owed where the plaintiff was married to the person who was injured by the defendant's negligence.

• a duty of care can be only owed where the plaintiff was in a close tie of love and affection with the person who was injured by the defendant's negligence.

Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 269, which was an aftermath case, is authority that:

• An employer owes a duty of care to protect from psychiatric harm all those persons that it knows or ought to know are friendly with its employee

• An employer owes a duty of care to protect from psychiatric harm all those persons that it knows or ought to know are friends with its employee

• An employer owes a duty of care to protect from psychiatric harm all those persons that it knows or ought to know are in a close and loving relationship with its employee

• An employer owes a duty of care to protect from psychiatric harm all those persons that it knows or ought to know have a secret crush on its employee