Case Review (MAIA): Lundbergs V Fu

A personal injuries lawyer whose own firm was representing her family's accident claims saw her own psychiatric injury claim dismissed in Lundbergs v Fu [2025] QSC 135. For personal injury practitioners, this case demonstrates why psychiatric injury claims fail when the plaintiff wasn't present, the accident caused no physical injuries, and multiple life stressors provides alternative causation explanations.

CLAIM TYPE: Motor Vehicle Accident

PLAINTIFF: Paula Karen Lundbergs, female, personal injuries lawyer operating her own practice

INJURY: Psychiatric injury (adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood) - claimed to have developed or aggravated pre-existing condition as result of learning about accident involving her family, attending hospital, and subsequently assisting family members through their treatment and legal proceedings (plaintiff was not in the accident)

SUMMARY & LEGAL ANALYSIS: On 2 August 2016, the plaintiff's partner and three children were involved in a minor traffic collision when their car rear-ended another vehicle on the Gateway Motorway near the Gold Coast exit at Eight Mile Plains. The first defendant caused the accident through negligent driving and was entirely at fault. Both cars sustained only minor damage, each was able to be driven away, and no one was physically injured.

The plaintiff did not witness the accident. She was a personal injuries lawyer with her own practice and was at work at the time. She learned about the accident when her middle daughter telephoned from the roadside and confirmed everyone was okay. As she prepared to leave work, she received a second call from an ambulance officer at the scene who also confirmed everyone was okay. While driving to the scene, the plaintiff received a third call from the ambulance officer informing her that her youngest daughter was hyperventilating and would be taken to hospital as a precaution.

The plaintiff attended the hospital where her daughters were. Her youngest daughter had calmed down and was no longer hyperventilating. Neither daughter required admission, observation, or treatment. The plaintiff's partner also attended hospital to be checked but did not require admission. The plaintiff took all family members to their GP the next day who confirmed none had suffered physical injuries.

Although none of the family members sustained physical injuries, each subsequently developed psychiatric injuries and commenced separate actions for damages in the District Court. Significantly, the plaintiff's own law firm handled and conducted these claims for her partner and three children.

The plaintiff claimed she developed psychiatric injury (or aggravated a pre-existing condition) as a result of: (1) the phone calls about the accident; (2) attending the hospital; and/or (3) subsequently assisting her partner and children through their post-accident counselling, medical appointments, and legal proceedings.

OUTCOME: LOST - Judgment for defendants

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding:

Duty of Care: The first defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. The plaintiff was not present at the accident scene, did not witness it, and was merely told about it by phone. Her family members suffered no actual serious physical harm - only minor property damage occurred and no one was injured. The risk of psychiatric harm to a person in the plaintiff's position was not reasonably foreseeable. The court applied established "nervous shock" principles requiring either: (a) the plaintiff to be in the zone of physical danger, or (b) witnessing a shocking event involving death or serious injury to a close family member. Neither applied here.

Causation: Even if a duty existed, the plaintiff failed to prove causation. The court found the minor nature of the accident (no injuries, minor damage, family confirmed safe multiple times) could not have caused psychiatric injury. The plaintiff experienced numerous other life stressors both before and after the accident that were the more likely cause of any psychiatric condition. These included: financial pressures, her partner's subsequent unemployment and deteriorating mental health, difficulties with her children's psychiatric conditions and legal proceedings, and the demands of running her law practice while managing her family's crisis.

Key Principles:

1. Liability for psychiatric injury to secondary victims (those not present at the scene) requires reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric harm - not just foreseeability that the person might be upset or distressed
2. Where an accident causes no physical injury and only minor property damage, psychiatric injury to a person who merely learns of the accident by phone is not reasonably foreseeable
3. Multiple assurances of safety (daughter's call, ambulance officer's two calls, seeing family members unharmed at hospital, GP confirmation) negate any basis for claiming the accident itself caused psychiatric injury
4. Courts carefully scrutinize claims where the plaintiff had numerous other significant life stressors that provide alternative explanations for psychiatric symptoms
5. The mere fact that family members subsequently developed psychiatric injuries from the accident does not establish that a person who was not present and whose family suffered no physical harm would also develop psychiatric injury from learning about it

For practitioners: This case reinforces strict limitations on "nervous shock" claims and demonstrates judicial scepticism toward psychiatric injury claims arising from minor accidents where the claimant was not present and family members suffered no serious harm. The case is instructive on causation analysis where multiple stressors exist.

DECISION: Lundbergs v Fu [2025] QSC 135

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.