Chester v Waverley Municipal Council (1939) 62 CLR 1
Tort; Negligence; the duty of care; the foreseeability of harm.
Facts: A seven-year-old boy drowned in a trench dug by the Waverley Corporation. The boy's mother suffered shock and health problems as a result of seeing his body recovered. She sued the Corporation in Negligence.
Issue: Did the Corporation owe the boy's mother a duty of care?
Decision: The court held that the boy's mother did not belong to the class of persons to whom a duty of care was owed by the Corporation.
Reason: Latham CJ said (at 10):
"'A reasonable person would not foresee' that the negligence of the defendant towards the child would 'so affect' a mother. … It is … not a common experience of mankind that the spectacle, even of the sudden and distressing death of a child, produces any consequence of more than a temporary nature in the case of bystanders or even of close relatives who see the body after death has taken place."
However, Australian courts have since held that a mother suffering psychiatric harm in such circumstances is 'not unlikely'.
See also Sydney County Council v Dell'Oro (1974) 132 CLR 97. The High Court excluded liability in circumstances where a person reasonably believed to be a fully licensed electrician was electrocuted by uninsulated wires in an uncovered 'links' box. Barwick CJ said (at [4]): "... it was not foreseeable that a qualified tradesman would place himself, quite unnecessarily, in fatal proximity to the conductors".