Consequence In Tame And New South Wales

What Is The Consequence In Tame And New South Wales?

This is a case between appellant Mrs. Tame and Mr. Terence Lavender. On 11th January 1991 there was a motor vehicle crash which occurred at Richmond outside Sydney area. The appellant Mrs. Terence and the driver of the other vehicle Mr. Terence Lavender were involved. Mr. Lavender was the one at fault since he was driving on the wrong side of the road and he has a blood reading of 0.14. Mrs. tame according to the blood sample taken after the accident yield a nil blood alcohol reading (Tenant, 2004).

The traffic collision report for the incident was done by Constable Morgan of Windsor Police Station, but unfortunately, the blood alcohol component of the two drivers was not indicated. In 1991 February, the blood alcohol content of each driver was recorded by senior constable Beardsley as 0.14 for both drivers. He later identified the mistake and corrected the original document.

Mrs. Tame sued the nominal Defendant Mr. Lavender who had been driving an uninsured vehicle. NZI handled the claim and they admitted the liability by 11th June 1991. In August 1994, the claim against nominal defendant was ultimately settled, and Mrs. Tame was paid some sum of money. By 1992, the insurance company NZI was reluctant to pay physiotherapy management undertaken by Mrs. Tame for the leg and back injury she suffered during the collision. Mrs. Tame became anxious and she talked to her lawyer, Mr. Weller, about the company refusing to continue paying her bills for physiotherapy. The solicitor of the NZI was contacted by Mr. Weller about the matter

In 1992, when Mr. Weller was talking to Mrs. Tame, she asked her whether she had consumed some alcohol before the accident. According to Mrs. Tame, she had consumed long alcohol time ago about 20 years. She was depressed at the proposal. Mr. Weller said to her that the NZI had a copy of the report indicating that she had consumed much alcohol than the required limit in Australia, this was due to the error made by senior constable Beardsley which he only corrected on the original document. The information worried Mrs. Tame, and she was wondering how many people will be told that she was drunk and how that was to affect her reputation.

Immediately after talking to her lawyer Mr. Weller, Mrs. Tame called the Windsor Police Station to find out whether the message in the report of NZI was true. She was told that according to the blood samples were taken during the accident, her alcohol content was zero, and that was just an error. The administration of liability was reconfirmed by the solicitor of the NZI on 29th July 1992. Mr. Weller obtained a formal apology from the police service in early 1993, and he was assured that the fault on the traffic report had been corrected. However, Mrs. Tame believed that NZI were reluctant to carter for her physiotherapy due to the false result they had. According to NZI, they believed that the treatment was pointless. This made Mrs. Tame to be gripped with the mistake on the form. She felt that she was being punished for the mistake she had not done, and she shared her views with her friends and husband. Mrs. Tame found it hard to sleep, eat and experienced guilt, shame, depression, and stress for which she sorts counseling. In 1995, Mrs. Tame was diagnosed as the psychotic depressive illness by her psychiatrist Doctor Mitchell.

The Consequence in Tame and New South Wales

Constable Morgan and the State of New South Wales were sued for negligence in the district court by Mrs. Tame. During the trial before Gargling DCJ, without the jury, it was found that the mistake was not made by Constable Morgan, but it was the mistake of acting Sargent Beardsley. The court determined that the state was responsible for the action of Sergeant Beardsley in completing the traffic collision report. A total of $ 115,692 were awarded to Mrs. Tame in damage (Tenant, 2004).

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal made by the state New South Wales. The appeal was conducted by Handley JA Spigelman CJ and Mason P. The court apprehended that, in the absence of the actual information of particular weakness, the law only act to take care to restrain psychiatric injuries to an individual of normal fortitude.  Their honors determined that it was not practically foreseeable that psychiatric injury from a cleric error that occurred here could occur for a person of a normal fortitude. Mason P also insisted that the risk of psychiatric injury was not practically foreseeable even if one pretended of the possible victim of normal fortitude. Handley JA and Mason P also allowed the petition on the extra basis that Mrs. Tame suffering was not an abrupt affront or attack on her psyche from the awareness of the horrifying event, which was considered by their honor a necessary precondition to recover in carelessness for psychiatric harm. Although according to law, pre-condition to recover was accepted by Spigelman Cj, the appeal was rejected with the reason that there was less finding of fact (Freckelton, 2017).

By special leave, there were several appeals made by Mrs. Tame on several grounds. In particular, she felt that the court of appeal was not fair in applying normal fortitude and sudden shock requirements. Counsel presenting Mrs. Tame submit that none of the requirements was necessary element in her cause of action in negligence for pure psychiatric injury

It was questionable that the duty of individual who is under investigation is owned by a police officer. Such duty prove to clash with the normal duty of police officer. Eventually based on fixed frame work and anterior common law by which the significant police service is maintained and established wholly to investigate this case. Hill v Chieve Constable of West of Yorkshire (1989) AC53.  It was submitted by the counsel of Mrs. Tame that she was not under analysis at the time the traffic accident was reported was complete. From the report, it was stated that Mrs. Tame was a victim in accident in respect of whom there was no doubt of any criminal offense. However, it is of no order to raise the question because of the reason that followed. Mrs. Tame’s action failed at the outset.

Legal Proceedings

According to respondent, no case in negligence could be made regarding the conduct of Sergeant Beardsley who was acting by then. This is because a reasonable person in the position of Sergeant Beardsley’s position would not have predicted that his conduct in keying in wrong information in completing the report elaborate a risk of producing a recognizable psychiatric infection to the complainant. In can be accepted that it was rationally foreseeable that such imprecision may cause distress, anger or surprise, particularly since the complainant’s were to receive the report (Freckelton, 2017). And could be accused, for a fee, by the members of the public. However, it could also be easily noted that

The record made on the complainant’s blood was wrong. The mistake once noticed was to be corrected and rectified promptly given the obvious nature of the error. Which resulted to the both drivers being recorded the same sample

It was not reasonably foreseeable that a person in the position of Mrs. Tame would suffer from a recognition psychiatric illness from a clerical error which the police had explained was a mistake that had been amended and she had been sent an official apology. The reaction of Mrs. tame was idiosyncratic and extreme. The risk for reaction of that kind was fanciful or fetched and, in the manner noted in the case Wyong Shire v Shirt (1980) 146CLR 40, was not one which was acquired by the law of negligence to be avoided

It is also noted from the case that, there is a minimum amount of alcohol which should be consumed for compensation to be made. According to NZI, it was unnecessary for Mrs. Tame to be compensated since the record showed that she was thrice drunk than the required level.

The reaction of Mrs. Tama shows that people value their name. She was stressed how the community will view her now that the error had been made by the police officer regarding her alcoholic condition. This forced her to call the police station to inquire whether the report that the NZI had was right. After confirming that the report had some errors, she did not calm down she was still worried, and this led to a psychiatrist.

The other outcome, in this case, shows that people should be keen in the area of work and only competent people should be given work to do. The error made by Sergeant Beardsley when working in the position of Constable Morgan cost the state $ 115,692 payment which was made to Mrs. Tama for damage. The action also caused her health wise.

There is two type of injuries which are mental and physical. Mental may be as a result of a physical injury like a mental injury as a result of physical illness experienced I the body or when a person stands a shock as a result of witnessing an accident.

Under the law, it is not easy to recover damages for negligent caused mental harm that is pure than for negligent caused physical harm or consequently mental harm. According to the duty of care, it is difficult to foresee pure mental harm since it is difficult to diagnose, unlike physical harm which is quite easier. the existents of duty of care have a condition of being reasonably foreseeable by the person who owed the duty.

Though, the duty of care has to be broken and be owed if it was foreseeable that a victim of normal fortitude might experience mental harm. Meaning a plaintiff’s abnormal vulnerability is not considered when determining the standard of care to be used. The exemptions to this rule are where the defendant was aware or was supposed to be aware of the vulnerability.

1. The nature of relationship between anyone and the plaintiff
2. Weather the metal harm was suffered by the victim through a sudden shock, or it was through physical injury
3. If the plaintiff was involved in the event or was the aftermath
4. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant

According to this case, the plaintiff had no relation to the defendant, and she was affected mental because of the mistake made by the police officer which tormented her.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is determined that in this case, the claimant had made an insurance claim with the NZI who compensated her after the accident had occurred they letter stopped due to erroneous report which was made by the police regarding the blood alcohol reading of Mrs. Tame. This caused a significant mental injury to the claimant making her sue the state at the district court. The district court made the ruling for the claimant, and she was to be paid damage fee (Freckelton, 2017).

The state later took an appeal to the Supreme Court challenging whether there could be a mental injury claim due to the error made by the police and the judges made a ruling stating that there was no liability and they game the following reasons:

1. There was no foreseeable that after explanation and apology by the police officers, a mistake on a form could be capable of causing such injuries
2. The form was filled by the police to give to its superior officers who were the main work of the police
3. If there is the relationship, primary or secondary victim classification disregarded for foreseeability alone.

References

Tennant, C., 2004. Psychological trauma: psychiatry and the law in conflict. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38(5), pp.344-347.

Freckelton, I., 2017. Evolution in psychiatric injury law. Precedent (Sydney, NSW), (138), p.2.