The Limits of Duty: When Minor Accidents Don’t Create Liability for Family Distress
In this thought-provoking episode of P.I. Case Note, Michelle Wright examines the Queensland Supreme Court’s decision in Lundbergs v Fu & Anor [2025] QSC 135, which establishes important boundaries on liability for psychiatric injuries suffered by family members who learn about their loved ones’ involvement in motor vehicle accidents. The case centred on Miss Lundbergs, who claimed she suffered psychiatric injury after receiving phone calls informing her that her partner and three children had been involved in a car accident—despite being repeatedly assured that no one was injured and the collision was minor.
The court’s analysis provides crucial guidance on the scope of duty owed to “secondary victims” under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), finding that it was not reasonably foreseeable that a person would suffer psychiatric injury upon hearing about family members’ involvement in a minor accident where no physical injuries occurred. Justice’s detailed 88-page judgment carefully distinguished this case from previous High Court authorities, emphasising that the actual circumstances of the accident—not hypothetical worst-case scenarios—must guide the foreseeability analysis. The decision reinforces that while drivers owe a duty of care on the roads, this duty has reasonable limits and doesn’t extend to protecting against unreasonable psychological reactions to minor incidents.
Listen below for Michelle Wright’s comprehensive analysis of this significant decision and its implications for secondary victim claims. If you or a loved one has been involved in a motor vehicle accident and suffered genuine injuries—whether physical or psychological—the experienced team at accident legal can help you understand your rights and navigate the complexities of Queensland’s compensation laws. Contact us for a free consultation to discuss your claim and ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.