---
title: "Set out the normal-fortitude questions for a mental harm duty of care"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/set-out-the-normal-fortitude-questions-for-a-mental-harm-duty-of-care"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A21-FM20261023-9"
practice_area: "Personal Injury & Compensation (workers compensation, CTP/TAC, medical negligence)"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-25"
---

# Set out the normal-fortitude questions for a mental harm duty of care

> Set out the questions in the duty section the lawyer names, one row each, and leave every answer blank.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/set-out-the-normal-fortitude-questions-for-a-mental-harm-duty-of-care  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-25

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Personal Injury & Compensation (workers compensation, CTP/TAC, medical negligence)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Set out the questions in the duty section the lawyer names, one row each, and leave every answer blank. Include sudden shock, presence at the scene, the relationship, and any pre-existing relationship only if that section lists them. |
| What the lawyer must review | You decide whether a duty is owed. The tool lists the statutory questions and does not answer them. Do not treat normal fortitude as a diagnosis. Use a known lesser fortitude only in the way the section states. A section that says shock does not bar recovery is not the duty test. Keep it in its own row. ASCR r 9 and APP 11 apply. A breach may be notifiable under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). |
| Written for / versions | 3 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Duty questions left blank**

The tool copies the statutory questions. The lawyer decides foreseeability and does not treat a shock-saving section as the duty test.

- What the AI does: Set out the questions in the duty section the lawyer names, one row each, and leave every answer blank. Include sudden shock, presence at the scene, the relationship, and any pre-existing relationship only if that section lists them.
- What the lawyer does: You decide whether a duty is owed. The tool lists the statutory questions and does not answer them. Normal fortitude is not a diagnosis. A known lesser fortitude is used only in the way the section states. A section that says shock does not bar recovery is not the duty test. Keep it in its own row. ASCR r 9 and APP 11 apply. A breach may be notifiable under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Separate pure mental harm from consequential mental harm if the section asks different circumstances for each.
2. Do not treat sudden shock or presence at the scene as a requirement unless the section makes it one.
3. If the defendant knew of lesser fortitude, row that as the section states it, not as a general exception.
4. Keep the section that only says the plaintiff is not debarred because of shock separate from the duty section.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Sources

- [Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 67](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/wa1958111/s67.html) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 72](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/wa1958111/s72.html) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 23](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/wa1958111/s23.html) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) table of provisions](https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cla2003161/) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 27](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s27.html) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 32](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s32.html) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 29](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s29.html) (checked 2026-10-23)

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Psychiatrist's instructions on a recognised psychiatric illness](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/personal-injury-and-compensation/psychiatrist-recognised-psychiatric-illness.md) | Letter | Yellow | Letter asking a psychiatrist whether there is a recognised psychiatric illness for a mental harm claim, without asking the psychiatrist to apply the statutory tests. |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [New South Wales](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/set-out-the-normal-fortitude-questions-for-a-mental-harm-duty-of-care/new-south-wales.md) | Yellow |
| [Victoria](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/set-out-the-normal-fortitude-questions-for-a-mental-harm-duty-of-care/victoria.md) | Yellow |
| [Queensland](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/set-out-the-normal-fortitude-questions-for-a-mental-harm-duty-of-care/queensland.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*