Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60; (1970) 125 CLR 383
- Court: High Court of Australia
- Decided on: 23 December 1970
- Judges: Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, and Walsh JJ.
- Area of law: Negligence; duty of care; nervous shock; foreseeability of mental harm
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) is a significant case in Australian tort law, particularly in relation to claims for nervous shock and the foreseeability of psychological harm in the workplace.
Facts of the case (Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey)
The respondent (Pusey), employed as an engineer by Mount Isa Mines Ltd., witnessed a horrific incident where two electricians suffered severe burns due to a short circuit caused by mishandling a multi-meter. After hearing a loud noise, the respondent rushed to assist one of the injured men, Kuskopf, who later died from his injuries. The respondent initially continued working without issue but developed schizophrenia weeks after the incident, which was attributed to the emotional distress of witnessing the burns.
Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the employer owed a duty of care to the respondent for the mental injuries he sustained. Specifically, the question was whether Mount Isa Mines should have foreseen that an employee like Pusey might suffer psychological harm from witnessing such a traumatic event. Also, whether the specific illness (schizophrenia) suffered by him was foreseeable.
At first, the trial judge decided in favor of Pusey. This was then appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which dismissed the appeal. Appeal was again made to the High Court.
High Court’s Findings (Chief Justic Barwick and other judges)
The court found that although the specific mental condition (schizophrenia) may have been rare, it was not necessary for the precise injury to be foreseeable. What mattered was whether some psychological injury was foreseeable due to the traumatic event.
It was held that a reasonable employer should have foreseen that employees witnessing a co-worker suffering severe burns could suffer psychological reactions, and thus the employer breached its duty of care by failing to provide proper instruction on handling the multi-meter.
The court rejected the argument that the respondent’s condition was merely the result of personal brooding over the incident. The court accepted that the trauma of witnessing the burns and assisting Kuskopf was directly related to his subsequent mental illness.
In the words of Barwick C.J.,
“There remains the submission that that mental disturbance ought not to be held to be causally related to the incident. The primary judge clearly found that, though delayed in its manifestation, the schizophrenic condition of the respondent was directly related to the effect the view of, and contact with, the burning man had had upon him. It seems to me that the appellant’s submission amounts in reality to no more than saying that the particular make-up of the respondent contributed to the resulting mental disturbance and that such an experience as he had had would not have caused a person of a different disposition to have become similarly disturbed. But that is clearly no answer to the respondent’s claim for damages. In my opinion, the primary judge’s conclusion as to the causal relationship between the incident and the respondent’s schizophrenia ought not to be disturbed.”
(at p390)
Conclusion (Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey)
The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal by Mount Isa Mines Ltd., holding that the respondent’s mental illness was a foreseeable consequence of the traumatic event, even if the specific condition (schizophrenia) was rare. Hence, the employer was liable. The decision reaffirmed that foreseeability in negligence cases does not require the precise nature of the injury to be anticipated, but rather, the general class of injury should be foreseeable.
References:
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW: