Deceased Driver Found to Owe a Duty Of Care to Police Officer

Caffrey v AAI Limited [2019] QSC 7 (“Caffrey”): David Caffrey was a Senior Constable with the Queensland Police Service. In February 2013 Mr Caffrey was the first responder police officer to a motor vehicle accident involving Bryon Williams. Mr Williams died after crashing his Holden Commodore into a tree while affected by drugs.

It was alleged by Mr Caffrey that as a consequence of his attendance at the accident scene he suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He brought a claim against Mr William’s CTP insurer for damages for a pure psychiatric injury.

The question for the Supreme Court was whether Mr Williams owed Mr Caffrey a duty to avoid the risk of a psychiatric injury. The Court ultimately determined that, despite Mr Caffrey being subject to statutory duties to respond to the emergency as a police officer, Mr Caffrey was either a mere bystander or a rescuer and in those circumstances Mr Williams owed a duty of care to Mr Caffrey.

It was argued by the Defendant that for policy reasons the Plaintiff’s status as a police officer precluded any duty being owed by Mr Williams. The insurer contended that there was a public expectation in respect of police training and resilience that such persons in the shoes of Mr Williams would not reasonably have contemplated the risk of any psychiatric harm suffered by Mr Caffrey. In rejecting the Defendant’s argument the Court observed that police officers are human and are not entirely immune to psychiatric injury even when they make use of all available training experience and techniques.

The Court held that a reasonable person in the shoes of Mr Williams would have foreseen that a police officer in Mr Caffrey’s position attending a motor vehicle accident which resulted from the negligence of Mr Williams might suffer a recognisable psychiatric injury.

It will be interesting to see how the law in this area develops in Queensland. The Court has left the question open as to whether the same duty could be owed to other emergency service workers who suffer a psychiatric injury in circumstances not involving motor vehicle accidents.

This case will be of interest to all rescuers and first responders who suffer a psychiatric injury and who may seek to recover damages for their injuries.