Philcox V. King

Mr King appealed the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia’s decision for him to be liable to pay Ryan Philcox damages for mental harm on two grounds. The first is that he did not owe Ryan Philcox a duty of care and the second that as Ryan Philcox was not present at the scene of the accident when the accident occurred, he did not satisfy the condition imposed by s 53(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act (SA) upon recovery of damages for mental harm by someone other than a parent, spouse or child of a person killed, injured or endangered in an accident. The issues that arise for the purposes of this appeal are that if Mr King owed Ryan Philcox duty of care, his negligent driving breached it and that if the duty of care existed and was