Dad sues dead wife over crash that killed their children

A Queensland father whose four children were killed in a fiery crash is suing his deceased wife for millions of dollars over the incident.

A Queensland father whose four children were killed in a fiery crash is suing his deceased wife for millions of dollars, alleging she intentionally drove the family car into a truck to cause him psychological harm.

James McLeod is seeking more than $2m in damages for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress he alleges was caused by Charmaine McLeod, who died in the 2019 crash with their four children Aaleyn, 6, Matilda, 5, Wyatt, 4, and Zaidok, 2.

Ms McLeod’s insurer, Suncorp Insurance, which is named as the second defendant in the suit, is defending the claim, disputing a number of Mr McLeod’s pleadings, including the harm suffered and the extent of his lost earning capacity.

The father’s claim, filed in the Brisbane Supreme Court, states that after learning of the tragedy he developed “an overwhelming sense of grief, distress and loss”.

James McLeod is seeking more than $2m in damages. Picture: Dan Peled / NCA NewsWire

“As a consequence of the first defendant’s (Charmaine McLeod’s) breach of duty and or the first defendant’s intentional or reckless conduct, the plaintiff has suffered a psychological injury, diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder with prominent associated anxiety and depression, an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and alcohol use disorder (the injuries),” the claim states.

Mr McLeod alleges that as a result of the injuries he has endured, he will continue to endure pain, suffering, inconvenience and loss of amenities of life and that he has and will continue to require medical treatment. Mr McLeod is also seeking damages for the loss of future earning capacity.

The volunteer firefighter said he had intended to seek work as a paid urban firefighter after his youngest son Zaidok started school.

Charmaine McLeod, centre, and her four children were killed in a car crash near Kumbia in 2019. Picture: Facebook.

Alternatively he planned to seek employment as a truck driver, plasterer or in a trade.

But he claims as a result of the tragedy and his consequent injuries, he will be unable to obtain employment, preventing his future potential income.

“The plaintiff has been left with very limited to no residual earning capacity as a result of the collision…,” the claim states.

According to the court documents, Mr McLeod said he now experienced ongoing depression, anxiety, insomnia, hopelessness, reduced motivation, lethargy and alcohol abuse.

He said he also suffered nightmares relating to the collision at least four times a week and flashbacks relating to the tragedy multiple times a day.

“The abovementioned ongoing symptoms are significant barriers to the plaintiff seeking and maintaining gainful employment,” the claim states.

“The plaintiff is no longer suited to work as a truck driver or a firefighter due to the (aforementioned) ongoing symptoms, and in particular due to his travel anxiety.

“The first defendant as the driver of the vehicle, owed to the plaintiff, the father of her passengers, a duty to take reasonable care to avoid exposing him to the risk of psychological harm which may occur should their children be injured or killed in a collision,” Mr McLeod’s claim states.

The scene of the fatal crash.

He alleges Ms McLeod intended to cause harm or death to their children and that by doing so, she intended “to cause psychological harm to the plaintiff or was reckless as to whether or not the collision and the harm or death of the children would cause the plaintiff’s psychological harm”.

Mr McLeod is suing for more than $2.3m, including $606,279 for future economic loss, $70,995 for loss of future superannuation earning, $506,520 for future care and assistance, $102,950 in general damages, $49,750 for future expenses and $4941 for past special damages expenses.

He is also seeking not less than $1m in aggravated damages, arguing “the first defendant’s breach of duty and or intentional or reckless conduct” was “heinous and reprehensible” and “in contumelious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights”.

“The plaintiff’s pain and suffering has been increased by reason of the horrifying circumstances in which the injuries have occurred,” the claim states.

Charmaine McLeod with three of her four children. Picture: Facebook

The second defendant, AAI Limited trading as Suncorp Insurance, has filed a defence to Mr McLeod’s claim, disputing a number of his pleadings.

The defence disputed Mr McLeod’s claim about his future employment and earning capacity, including that: “He would not have been able to satisfy the entry requirement to obtain paid employment as an urban firefighter”.

“His family obligations, but for Charmaine McLeod’s breach of duty, were such that he would not have been in a position to undertake the shift work required by employment as an urban firefighter,” the defence stated.

The insurer’s defence also made a number of claims about Mr McLeod’s health history including allegations of drug use.

The insurer alleged that Mr McLeod suffered from back pain, had been prescribed antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications on 10 occasions between 2004 and 2011 and experienced night terrors.

“Because of those matters … the working life expectancy … the plaintiff could otherwise have anticipated had it not been for his alleged injuries had been reduced to a span less than that which would ordinarily be anticipated by an Australian male of the plaintiffs present age,” the defence states, adding the plaintiff would have faced difficulty in securing and maintaining employment and would have “required medical treatment and the use of antidepressant medication”.

But Mr McLeod disputed a number of their assertions in a reply filed with the court, which argued his history did not significantly impact his employment capacity or his ability to complete daily activities prior to the fatal crash.

According to the court file, previous mediation attempts in the case have failed.

The parties agreed in June to wait until a coroner had finalised her investigation into the tragedy before the civil case progressed further.