Lee Kevin Caller v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)

2025/00468433

TORTS (negligence) – the appellant was a police officer with the New South Wales Police Force, commencing on 5 May 2001 – the appellant sustained a work-related psychiatric injury which caused him to cease work with the Police Force on or about 4 January 2019 and from that date he has suffered a significantly reduced capacity for any type of employment – on 12 October 2023, the appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent alleging that his psychiatric injury, being Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), was caused by a breach by the respondent of a duty of care owed to him – the appellant claimed that he had developed PTSD as a result of exposure to several traumatic incidents over the course of his employment as a police officer – the primary judge held that the respondent owed to the appellant a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risks of injury arising from the appellant’s service as a police officer, the particular content of this duty being to (a) identify officers who, through the performance of their duties, were at risk of suffering, or were suffering, psychiatric or psychological harm; (b) take steps to ensure that any officer so identified received appropriate treatment and support to alleviate or lessen the effect of his or her injury; and (c) consult with appropriate persons in the workplace to identify hazards associated with the work environment and systems of work if and when the injured worker returned to duty, including the assessment of the risks of injury or further injury – the primary judge further held that the risk of the appellant developing PTSD was foreseeable and that the respondent breached its duty of care by failing to implement various record-keeping systems designed to identify and monitor officers at risk of PTSD – the primary judge held, however, that the appellant failed to establish that his injury was caused by the respondent’s breach of duty – the primary judge made a contingent finding of damages, the final calculation of which would be agreed by the parties, with a 20% reduction for vicissitudes and a 20% reduction for the contributory negligence of the appellant – whether the primary judge erred in various of his Honour’s findings as to the scope and content of the duty of care, breach of duty, causation, contributory negligence, and damages.

Caller v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 468