1A negligent driver does not owe a duty of care in respect of psychiatric injury to a person not present at the scene of a minor traffic collision where no one sustained physical injuries, because it is not reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude would suffer a recognised psychiatric illness from being informed of such an event by telephone.
2Where a plaintiff claiming psychiatric injury as a secondary victim has multiple significant life stressors unrelated to the defendant's negligence, the court must assess whether the defendant's breach was a cause of the psychiatric illness applying the 'but for' test under s 11 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), and the plaintiff bears the onus of proving that the negligent act materially contributed to the condition rather than merely being one of many background stressors.
3In assessing notional damages for psychiatric injury where non-tortious causes significantly contributed to the plaintiff's condition, the court may apportion a substantial proportion of symptoms and impairments to non-accident causes, applying the principles in Watts v Rake and Purkess v Crittenden.
