First responders and vicarious trauma: Lessons on the scope of duty from Caller v New South Wales

Mental injury claims lodged with WorkCover Queensland more than doubled in the five years from FY22 to FY26.¹ With many of those claims relating to occupational exposure to traumatic incidents and information, employers of first responders and other workers exposed to vicarious trauma, are left wondering what is required in order to fulfil their duty of care. While it is well-established that employers of persons who may be exposed to trauma in the course of their employment, such as first responders, should be alert to signs of psychological deterioration in their employees,² an employer is only required to take reasonable steps to provide a safe system of work.³ The recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Caller v New South Wales is another piece in the puzzle towards a better understanding of the scope of duty for those employers.

Background of the Case: PTSD Claim against NSW Police Force

Mr Caller was employed as a police officer for NSW Police Force (the Respondent) from 2001 to 2019. He sustained a psychiatric injury – post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) – due to cumulative exposure to traumatic events in the course of his employment and brought a claim against the Respondent, alleging that injury arose out of its negligence.

It was not in dispute the Respondent owed a duty of care to Mr Caller and that the risk of a police officer suffering a psychiatric injury due to traumatic events was foreseeable and not insignificant.

Mr Caller alleged the psychiatric injury was caused by breach of the duty of care owed to him by the Respondent, in that the Respondent:

1. failed to properly educate him regarding his potential susceptibility to psychiatric injury due to exposure to traumatic events;
2. failed to implement proper record-keeping systems regarding the frequency with which he attended traumatic incidents, to initially identify that he was at a particular risk of developing PTSD and thereafter monitor that risk; and
3. failed to see a psychological injury he sustained in or around 2014 as a sign he was at a heightened risk of developing PTSD. He also alleged the Respondent failed to ensure medical practitioners who cleared him to return to general duties following that earlier injury were aware of his historical exposure to trauma.

The primary decision: Was the employer’s duty of care breached?

The trial judge held the Respondent had not breached its duty of care in terms of failing to educate Mr Caller, because there was evidence it had taken reasonable steps to make him and other officers aware of the psychological risks of their work and the signs and symptoms of PTSD.

The trial judge also agreed that the earlier psychological injury could be characterised as a ‘red flag’ in hindsight, however noted that whether there was a breach of duty was a prospective inquiry. The trial judge determined the Respondent had not breached its duty because it appropriately ensured that Mr Caller was medically fit to return to full duties following the earlier injury.

In terms of the systems the Respondent had in place to identify and monitor the risk that Mr Caller might develop PTSD, the trial judge noted from 2006, the Respondent had decided to keep and maintain records identifying how many traumatic incidents particular officers had attended alongside a description of those events, allowing senior personnel to ascertain and monitor an individual’s exposure to trauma. The suggested method for monitoring staff included offering debriefing sessions, making available psychological support services, and the following up of officers at regular intervals to assess symptom development.

The trial judge observed however that the Respondent never properly enacted that system and records regarding the actual number of traumatic incidents Mr Caller had attended were significantly deficient. That was despite the Respondent’s ‘considerable fanfare’ in announcing that the system would be implemented. His Honour also noted that while counselling services were available, there was a notable lack of proactive contact from those services to officers who attended traumatic incidents. It was to that extent that the trial judge determined the Respondent had breached its duty of care.

Nonetheless, His Honour considered that even if those medical practitioners who examined Mr Caller were appraised of full details of the traumatic incidents, which would have been available had the Respondent kept proper records, it had not been shown that such details would have changed their opinion regarding his fitness for work or his risk of developing PTSD. The trial judge noted that was especially the case where, at no particular time and in particular in 2014, was Mr Caller suffering from severe symptoms. His Honour therefore was not satisfied inadequate record-keeping had materially contributed to the injury on the balance of probabilities and held overall that the injury was not caused by the Respondent’s negligence.

While not necessary to consider given there was no finding of negligence, the trial judge went on to determine Mr Caller was contributory negligent because he did not seek out psychological assistance, despite having adequate education regarding the risk of developing PTSD and signs to watch out for.

The appeal decision

On appeal, Mr Caller submitted, among other things, that as a result of insufficient record-keeping of his attendance at traumatic incidents, ‘[w]hat was missed between 2010 and 2018 was intervention, clinical intervention, management, the potential modification of work duties, et cetera’.

Handing down its decision on 13 October 2026, the New South Wales Court of Appeal (NSWCA) dismissed the appeal. The NSWCA agreed the Respondent had breached its duty in a limited way in failing to keep proper records. It was especially noted that a ‘Critical Incident Register’ recorded only two traumatic incidents Mr Caller had been exposed to in 2006 and 2016 and that was grossly misrepresentative of the number of incidents he attended.

However, the Court maintained the trial judge’s finding that Mr Caller himself, the clinicians who examined him and his fellow officers all knew he had been working as a general duties police officer for many years and had repeatedly encountered traumatic events. Better record-keeping would have only reinforced what was already known and therefore would not have materially changed the trajectory of his injury.

The law in Queensland and potential implications

In Queensland, Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service is the oft-cited authority for the proposition that in the absence of clear and unequivocal signs of psychological dysfunction, an employer is not required to pre-emptively intervene.⁴ To expect an employer to do so would be unreasonable.

Caller does not alter the law in Queensland or New South Wales. It does however explore the prospect that in cases involving repeated occupational trauma, it may be insufficient for an employer to simply have monitoring systems in place. Rather, an employer should act in response to the information those systems provide. In the case of Caller, it was held that whether the Respondent maintained its records and took responsive action did not materially contribute to the injury. In another case, the result could be different, potentially exposing employers to a scope of duty greater than that expounded in Hegarty.

¹ See https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.a... and https://cdn.workcoverqld.com.a...
²Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd (2005) 222 CLR 44, [41] (‘Koehler’).
³Koehler [19] - [25].
⁴ [2007] QCA 366.