Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Psychiatric Injury - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Per Lord Bridge in McLaughlin v O'Brian (1983): Claimant must prove that it has caused a 'positive psychiatric illness' e.g. PTSD, clinical depression
        
        Vernon v Bosley
      - Per Lord Jauncey in Page v Smith (1995): By nervous shock, I mean impact upon the mind or nervous system as is recognised by modern medical science as capable of causing physical/psychiatric illness
  - - - BUT it will depend on the relationship the the event that caused the shock AND case laws covering different categories of victims
- - - - Page v Smith (1995):
        
        Facts: Claimant was involved in an accident that could have caused physical injury but escaped safely. Years later he suffered a serious illness. He had this illness for years but the accident triggered his illness again. The illness was caused by the shock of being involved in the accident.
        
        Held: HoL held that it was reasonably foreseeable that defendant's behavior would expose the claimant to risk of physical injury. There was DOC with injury that claimant suffered including psychiatric injury (hence not necessary that the psychiatric injury itself is foreseeable)
        
        Zainab Ismail v Marimuthu & Anor (1955):
        
        Here court allowed claimant's claim for nervous shock sustained as a result of seeing daughter knocked down by defendant's lorry
  - - - Bourhill v Young (1943):
        
        Facts: A motorcyclist driving at high speed collided with a car and died. The claimant who was 8-months pregnant suffered nervous shock where her baby was stillborn and claimed the accident responsible
        
        Held: To succeed in claim, claimant had to establish DOC owed by defendant. To find DOC, claimant must be foreseeable/proximate to the scene of accident. Claim failed
    - - It is foreseeable that an ordinary person could suffer injury then there will usually be a DOC owed
      - Particular susceptibility:
        
        Claimant suffer injury greater than expected, defendant is liable for full extent of injury because you take the victim as you find them - 'eggshell skull rule'
- - - - Prove their psychiatric damage is a recognised psychiatric illness
        
        Psychiatric injury must be caused by a sudden/unexpected caused by a 'horrifying event'
        
        Shock can be a result of damage to property
        
        Attia v British Gas (1988):
        
        Facts: Claimant suffered psychiatric illness due to witnessing a fire which destroyed her house due to negligence of the defendant in installing central heating
        
        Held: CA held claim for psychiatric illness foreseeable in light of all circumstances
    - - Per Lord Ackner: So closely and directly affected by his conduct as to suffer shock leading to psychiatric illness
        
        Relatives/Friends
        
        Per Lord Wilberforce in McLoughlin v. O'Brian:
        
        Possess fortitude sufficient to enable them to endure the calamities of modern life. The claim in any case must be judged in the light of factors such as proximity to the scene in time + place and nature of the accident
        
        Relatives must also be matter of fact close, "not merely in relationship but also in care"
        
        Rescuers
        
        Per Lord Hoffman in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1999):
        
        Not in zone of danger of physical injury (not primary victims)
        
        As a secondary victim (must satisfy Alcock's test)
        
        Reasons for this:
        
        Allowing rescuers to be special case will lead to difficult distinctions (lines between bystanders and rescuers will be difficult to draw + how much help will someone have to give to be considered a rescuer?)
        
        White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1999):
        
        Facts: Claimant are police officers who claimed damages for psychiatric illness from their involvement in the Hillsborough disaster. 5/6 claimants who assisted the injured and the 6th claimant was on duty at the mortuary
        
        Note: None of the officers were exposed to any physical injury
        
        Unwitting agents
        
        When negligence of another causes the claimant to cause physical injury to another thereby causing the former psychiatric injury
        
        How to claim per Brooke LJ in Hunter v British Coal:
        
        Those who caused to fear physical injury to themselves
        
        Those who come to the rescue of the injured
        
        Those who believe that they are about to be or have been the involuntary cause of another's death/injury (the person believed it was his fault)
        
        Hunter v British Coal (1998):
        
        Facts: Claimant saw a hydrant leaking water. He attempted to fix the hydrant but was unable to. A work colleague came to provide assistance but got killed via an explosion because of the hydrant. Claimant felt immediately responsible for the death of his colleague and suffered depression
        
        Held: Claimant was not a primary victim as he was not within the proximity of at the time of the explosion and heard the explosion 10 minutes later. He is also not a secondary victim because he did not satisfy the Alcock test
    - - Per Lord Ackner: Proximity to the accident must be close both in time and space. Cannot be through sight/hearing of the event, but its immediate aftermath