Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Nervous Shock - Coggle Diagram

- - - - test
        
        injury reasonably foreseeable
        
        proximity
        
        a relationship (closer it is better claim)
        
        proximity in time and space
        
        communication -- through sight or hearing of immediate aftermath
        
        recognised psychiatric illness
    - - essentialy creates two tier system easier for primary victims to recover than secondary victims
      - critcised in Ireland
- - - - S.C. v Minister for Health man close relationship with father, father dying, couldn't tell sister due to junior cert, father laid out home on Oxygen and morphine - exposure to sight sufficient (some would say more cummaltive ) but was awarded
      - Annetts australian case, boys lost in outback, father collapsed when heard sons hat and car found - asked to identify skeleton - was sufficient
      - Fletcher told of risk of cancer, slow burn development of fear and anxiety got psychiatric illness -no sudden shock - no recovery
      - Harford v ESB exposed to wire, if cut it would have been killed, CA - rejected Anetts, shock still part of Irish law - never actually exposed - doesn't allow recovery for subsequent contemplation of a near miss
    - - caused by defendants negligence
      - Curran v Cadbury turned on machine with co-worker inside, thought she killed him - injury reasonably foreseeable due to lack of safety procedures - 2 categories of victims not helpful (Alcock approach)
    - - not up to lawyer to diagnose
      - Larkin v Dublin City Council wrongly informed passed firefighters test, upset and embarassment insufficient
      - Murray for Budds delay in appointing barrister, caused worry and stress - not a psychiatric injury
    - - Devlin organs of still born baby retained without consent, claim dismissed - no 4th requirement as no actual or apprehended injury - dont want to extend law further
    - - consider proximity and reasonable foreseeable
      - Mustapha v Culligan Canada case - bottle of water with fly in it, after not unable to wash or drink water - not reasonably foreseeable
      - Proximity
        
        Sheehan v Bus Eireann accident on motorway, 3rd party saw person decapitated, tried to help, debris had nearly hit (zone of danger) reasonably foreseeable come to accident and suffer psychiatric injury
        
        no distinction between primary and secondary victims, Alcock control mechansims not part of Irish law
        
        5th limb does require Glencar style analysis
        
        Cuddy v Mays hospital porter family members (brother) brought into hospital after RTA, reasonable foreseeable would suffer psychaitric injury - doesn't matter when he got there - foreseeable enter hospital at some point
        
        Tame v Morgan suffered depression after wrongly told by police (australia) had been drinkiing - higher ocurt overturned damages award as not of normal fortitude
        
        Alin v Hackney falsely informed of child's death sufficient
        
        Brock v Northampton General Hospital grief and loss when child dies is insufficient to find liability