Australian Lawyers Weekly writes
In a Queensland Supreme Court negligence claim, a former sole practitioner claimed the psychiatric injury she suffered after her partner and children were involved in a minor car accident caused her to sell her legal practice in March 2023 and leave the profession.
The lawyer was not at the scene, and no party suffered physical harm, but she claimed a phone call from one daughter and the need to transport another daughter via ambulance to hospital for hyperventilating caused her to go into shock. The hyperventilation was brief, and the physical safety of her family was quickly confirmed.
She claimed the driver of the other vehicle owed her a common law duty to take reasonable care, while driving, not to cause an incident, any injuries to her family, or a psychiatric injury as a result of her family being involved or injured and her finding out about it.
There was no question the other driver was responsible due to negligent driving, but Suncorp Insurance – as his compulsory third-party insurer – said he did not owe the lawyer a common law duty of care because a reasonable person in his position would not have foreseen a risk of causing a psychiatric injury.
Suncorp also emphasised the minor nature of the traffic accident, that no significant damage was done, and no one was physically injured.
Justice Lincoln Crowley said that in a general sense, the lawyer’s argument seemed sound because the other driver did owe a duty of care to other road users to not cause them harm through negligent driving.
The driver would also conceivably owe a duty to other non-road users who could be harmed by an accident caused by negligent driving.
However, in this case, the lawyer’s family were not physically harmed.
Read More
