Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey
125 CLR 383(Decision by: McTIERNAN J)
Between: MOUNT ISA MINES LTD
And: PUSEY
Judges:
Barwick CJ
McTiernan JMenzies J
Windeyer J
Walsh J
Subject References:
Negligence
Duty of care
Damage
Nervous shock
Remoteness of damage
Judgment date: 23 December 1970
SYDNEY
Decision by:
McTIERNAN J
In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed.
It is established by the evidence that the respondent sustained mental shock at seeing the severe burns suffered by Kuskopf in the accident. It does not appear that the respondent would be abnormally susceptible to emotional distress at the sight of the pathetic. But it does appear from the evidence that the respondent's emotional sensibilities were violently agitated by contact with Kuskopf. The trial judge found that, by reason of that experience, the respondent suffered mental illness and physical disability and awarded him compensation in respect of such damage.
The appellant admits at this stage of the proceedings that it owed its employees a duty of care in relation to the electrical test which Kuskopf and a fellow workman were making in the switchroom of the powerhouse when the accident happened and that such duty was not discharged. It was reasonably foreseeable that any employees who were in the switchroom or in proximity to it might be injured if a short circuit resulting in a large electric arc occurred in the course of the test. The respondent was on a lower floor when the test was commenced. The events which have to be considered to decide whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the respondent might encounter a victim of the accident can be stated shortly. He heard the noise of the explosion on the floor above and went immediately to that floor. It was reasonable for him to do this (because he was actually a foreman on the appellant's staff), even though it was not obligatory that he should go upstairs to make an investigation. On arrival he saw a figure near the door of the switchroom and surrounded by smoke issuing from the room. There is no evidence that all electrical discharges had then ceased. The figure proved to be Kuskopf. I do not repeat the evidence regarding the burns upon his body. Suffice to say that they were ghastly.
The onset of the shock sustained by the respondent at his encounter with Kuskopf was "fairly contemporaneous with the casualty": see Chester v Waverley Corporation [F5] per Evatt J. It is clear that the onset of the shock sustained by the respondent was a consequence of the negligent conduct of the appellant in relation to the electrical test mentioned above. In my judgment this consequence fell within the range of reasonable foreseeability.
The mental illness suffered by the respondent was diagnosed as an acute schizophrenic reaction. It appears from the evidence that this type of illness seldom results from emotional distress such as that suffered by the respondent. Counsel for the appellant therefore contended that the appellant should not be found liable in damages. In my opinion it was not necessary in order to hold the appellant liable that, as a prudent employer, he should foresee the precise damage which would occur if he failed to discharge his duty of care. The evidence does not show that the type of damage in question could not be foreseeable by the prudent employer.