Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Psychiatric Harm (Pure Psychiatric Harm (Starting point (McLoughlin v…

- - - - What is meant by the zone of danger?
        
        Claimant is in physical danger
        
        Claimant not in actual danger but fears that he is
        
        Fear must be genuine
        
        D can reasonably foresee that a person of ordinary fortitude in C's position would suffer psychiatric harm
        
        McFarlane v EE Caledonia [1993]
    - - Page v Smith [1996]
        
        So long as some physical injuries are foreseeable, a duty of care can arise
        
        Criticisms of Page v Smith
        
        No previous support for such an approach
        
        Majority in Page misunderstood the egg shell skull rule as it only applies once liability has been established
        
        A primary victim with a thin-psyche can succeed if some personal injury to an ordinary person was foreseeable
  - - - Establish that psychiatric harm was caused by shock
        
        Psychiatric harm must be caused by shock and cannot be a gradual onset
        
        Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994]
        
        Son involved in an RTA and was hospitalised, where his father sat for 2 weeks before the son died
        
        Father suffered severe psychiatric harm
        
        Court said the harm had be caused by a gradual onset and not by shock
      - Satisfy a stiff reasonable foreseeability test
        
        Psychiatric harm must have been reasonably foreseeable for a person of normal fortitude
        
        Bourhill v Young [1943]
        
        Once this has been overcome, then the egg shell skull rule can apply
        
        Brice v Brown [1984]
      - Satisfy thin skull rule, where applicable
      - Satisfy various proximity requirements
        
        Proximity of Relationship
        
        C must prove they have a close tie or love and affection with the primary victim, but there is a rebuttable presumption in cases of spouse, child or parent
        
        Robertson & Rough v Forth Bridge Joint Board [1995]: C unable to prove proximity of relationship despite having worked with the victim for over 40 years
        
        Attia v British Gas [1988]: unable to claim for psychiatric harm when there is only damage to property
        
        Proximity of time and space
        
        Secondary victim must witness the distressing event, or the immediate aftermath
        
        Taylor v Somerset Health Authority [1993]: Injury must result from the distressing event, rather than the mere fact of death
        
        Proximity of Perception
        
        Palmer v Tees Health Authority [2000]: Secondary victim must actually see/hear the event first-hand
        
        Communication by a third party is insufficient
        
        Alcock: Television broadcast was insufficient to fulfil proximity
    - - Psychiatric harm must have been caused by the distressing event and not some other factor
      - Rescuers are treated in the same way as any other secondary victim
- - - - Rejected the law commissions proposals
      - Said legislative reform was unnecessary
      - Government said courts should develop the law and the court say the Government should reform the law
- - - - Hicks: not able to claim as only lived for 30 minutes
      - Roberts v Lestrange [1985]: Was able to claim as lived for 4 days after the injury