Case citation: King v Philcox [2015] HCA 19; (2015) 255 CLR 304
- Judgement date: 10 June 2015
- The bench of judges: French CJ, Kiefel, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ
- High Court of Australia
- Area of law: Negligence; Duty of care; Whether mental harm to brother of person killed foreseeable?
The case of King v Philcox [2015] HCA 19 deals with the interpretation and application of Sections 33 and 53 of the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) regarding claims for mental harm.
Facts
On 12 April 2005, Ryan Philcox’s brother was in a car driven by Mr. King. Due to King’s negligence, the car crashed with another at an intersection of Newton/Darley and Gorge Roads in Campbelltown, Adelaide, and Philcox’s brother died trapped inside the vehicle. Philcox later drove through the intersection five times, and only on the final occasion had the accident scene been cleared. That night, he was informed that his brother had died in a traffic accident. He realized that the accident he had seen the aftermath of was the one involving his brother. He visited the accident site the next day and eventually developed major depression.
Ryan Philcox sued for compensation for his mental harm. The District Court found King owed him a duty of care but ruled that Philcox could not claim damages because he did not meet the requirements under Section 53. The Full Court overturned this, saying that King owed a duty of care and that Philcox was at the accident scene “when the accident occurred,” which allowed him to claim damages. King appealed this to the High Court.
Relevant sections
Section 33: “A person (the defendant) does not owe a duty to another person (the plaintiff) to take care not to cause the plaintiff mental harm unless a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have foreseen that a person of normal fortitude in the plaintiff’s position might, in the circumstances of the case, suffer a psychiatric illness.”
Section 53(1), however, limits who can claim damages for mental harm. It provides –
“Damages may only be awarded for mental harm if the injured person was physically injured in the accident or was present at the scene of the accident when the accident occurred; or is a parent, spouse or child of a person killed, injured or endangered in the accident.”
Contentions by the appellant
Mr. King contended that the circumstances of this case did not satisfy Section 33 and that since Philcox (the respondent) was not present at the scene of the accident when the accident occurred, he did not satisfy the necessary condition of Section 53(1).
Decision of the High Court in King v Philcox
The High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, and clarified the following key points:
Duty of Care (s 33): The High Court held that the appellant owed the respondent a duty of care under section 33 of the Civil Liability Act. This section requires that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position should foresee that someone in the plaintiff’s position could suffer a recognized psychiatric illness due to the defendant’s negligence. The High Court found that this requirement was satisfied.
Damages for Mental Harm (s 53): Section 53 limits the recovery of damages for mental harm unless specific criteria are met. The Court focused on whether the respondent was “present at the scene of the accident when the accident occurred,” as required by s 53(1)(a). The respondent had driven through the intersection where the accident occurred several times after the incident but was not present at the moment of the collision.
The High Court concluded that the respondent was not “present at the scene of the accident when the accident occurred” as required by s 53, which means he did not meet the statutory criteria for recovering damages for mental harm. Therefore, the respondent could not recover damages for his mental harm.
Conclusion (King v Philcox)
The High Court’s ruling emphasized that while the duty of care was owed as correctly determined by the Full Court, the statutory restrictions under s 53 of the Civil Liability Act barred recovery of damages for mental harm.
List of references:
- https://jade.io/article/396854
- https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2015/hca-19-2015-06-10.pdf
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW: