← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case psychiatric injuryduty of care

Tame v New South Wales

(2002) 211 CLR 317
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2002
StatusBinding authority

Summary

High Court of Australia reconsidered the 'normal fortitude' test and 'direct perception' rule as prerequisites for a duty of care in negligently caused psychiatric injury cases.

Key Principle

duty of care for psychiatric injury; normal fortitude test and direct perception rule reconsidered

Area of Law

tort

Related Cases

Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) (2024) 98 ALJR 486

High Court of Australia held a religious organisation vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a priest, recognising a relationship akin to employment sufficient to ground vicarious liability.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd (2023) 278 CLR 99

High Court of Australia held that the peak indebtedness rule does not apply when assessing unfair preferences under s 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Kozarov v Victoria (2022) 275 CLR 115

An employer owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from psychiatric injury caused by vicarious trauma, and may breach that duty by failing to act on obvious warning signs.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Tame v New South Wales and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Tame v New South Wales