Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Psychiatric Harm (Problems with the law on it (Immediate aftermath…

- - - - Not enough to hear about the accident or see it on TV
- - - - Horse Drawn van crashed through window leading to a pregnant woman's miscarriage from shock. Could claim damage
- - - - Believed it was from weak character
      - Court didn't want to compensate just because they were "weak"
    - - Nowadays the claimant can bring evidence but back then it was just their word
- - - - Three categories
        
        Those who are physically injured by defendants negligence as well as psychiatric harm
        
        Primary victims
        
        Page v Smith (1996)
        
        The HOL held that where it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendants negligence would expose the claimant to a risk of injury, the defendant has a duty of care for the claimant and any injury suffered (mind and body)
        
        Simmons v British Steel (2004)
        
        HOL held that employer was liable for skin condition and the depressive illness as well. they exposed him to foreseeable risk of physical injury & therefore liable for all injuries that resulted from it.
        
        How serious must the risk be?
        
        McFarlane v Wilkinson (1997)
        
        Claimed was psychiatrically injured from the rig fire but COA rejected this as his boat was clearly never at danger (55 metres away) and so his fears for safety were unreasonable
        
        Unclear definition
        
        Lord Steyn claims "claimant must have objectively exposed himself to danger or reasonably believed he was"
        
        Lord Hoffmann claimed victims must be "within the range of reasonably foreseeable physical injury"
        
        Those who are not put at risk of physical harm, but actually suffer only psychiatric injury
        
        Secondary victims
        
        Five groups
        
        Employees suffering from witnessing work accident
        
        Bystanders who witness an accident
        
        People who have suffered as result of helping out at the scene of an accident - rescuers
        
        People whose psychiatric injury has been caused because tey did the thing that brought about the death/injury of someone else
        
        People who suffered psychiatric harm as result of witnessing the death of/injury of relatives/friends/colleagues
        
        Set out in McLoughlin v O'Brian (1982) and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992)
        
        M v O'B (1982) - Needed to know the primary victim in some way. She saw her family after a serious car accident in hospital causing clinical depression
        
        Alcock Where someone was not a primary victim of an accident their claim for psychiatry injury had to be subject to much stricter requirements than someone who was actually involved
        
        New Test for secondary victims
        
        Psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable result of the defendants negligence
        
        1 more item...
        
        They have a recognised psychiatric injury which was caused by a sudden shock
        
        3 more items...
        
        They have a close relationship with the primary victim
        
        They were at the scene of the shocking event or witnessed immediate aftermath
        
        Those who are not put in danger of physical injury to themselves but who suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing or hearing about such injury to someone else.
- - - - The judge disagreed stating that psychiatric harm had not been a cause of the injections happening but the knowledge of the possible injury later one. Stated they were neither primary or secondary victims but they could still claim under the Caparo test