Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Psychiatric Harm - Coggle Diagram
Psychiatric Harm
Primary Victims (if physical harm suffered they will be an actual victim & claim ordinary negligence and recoverable consequential psychiatric harm)
Dulieu v White- suffered psychiatric harm as a result of reasonable fear of their own physical safety (objective) and are in he danger zone
Page v Smith- car crash worsened his disability (no physical injuries) he is a primary victim as he had no physical injuries, any condition arose from fear.. If physical harm is foreseeable, doesn't matter if psychiatric harm is not. Thin skull rule applies- if physical injury is reasonably foreseeable, any extent of psychiatric injury is recoverable, even if suffered greater due to a pre-existing condition
Bystanders/rescuers
Cullin v London Fire & Civil Defence Authority- if they suffer psychiatric harm for fear of their own safety they will also be a primary victim
White v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire- action for PTSD of officers at stadium classed as secondary victims because not in vicinity of danger/scared for physical safety
McFarlane v EE Caledonia- passenger on rescuer boat could not be primary victim as the fear for his own physical safety was unreasonable (objective test) also it classified as rescuer as he was not actively involved in the rescue
Hinz v Berry- cannot claim for mere distress, grief or fear
Mazhar Hussain v Chie Constable of West Mercia- suffered anxiety and stress which caused numbness in his left arm and leg - the emotional harm (in the way he suffered it) was not psychiatric illness and the physical damage was not material damage. Harm must be material
If psychiatric harm is established, then consider duty of care:
Fair, just and reasonable to impose duty on D (precedent unavailable)
Secondary Victims
Alcock- they witness a traumatic event (or immediate aftermath) and suffer psychiatric harm/shock induced physical condition due to a fear for someone else's safety (close relative) they themselves are not in the danger zone. (Hillsborough Disaster example)
Alcock- a) psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable b) proximity of relationship between claimant and 'victim' c) proximity in time and space to the accident
a) Bourhill v Young- psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude in the same circumstances. (still birth by seeing blood on the road after an accident)
Brice v Brown- once established a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer psychiatric harm, the thin skull rule applies
b) must be 'close ties of love and affection' presumed in: parent/child, husband/wife and engaged partners (rebuttable), not presumed in grandparent/grandchild, siblings (rebuttable, but never done before)
c) McGloughlin- included immediate aftermath- 2 hours after the car crash but they were in the same condition they would be in at the roadside (this is critical) must hear/see with their own senses
c) Alcock- tv etc not sufficient for time and space as usually non-identifiable, if identifiable then it may be sufficient but the tv broadcast may act as an intervening act
Alcock- not owed a duty as they lacked proximity in time and space (watched from TV) and/or proximity of relationship
-
Paul v Wolverhampton NHS Trust- 'accident' in medical negligence may be allowed- normal Alcock criterea applies- psychiatric harm does not have to be caused by a sudden shock, there can be a casual link. A gap between breach and accident will not cause a problem. The accident need not be horrifying.
-
A psychiatric illness a claimant has suffered as a result of perception of traumatic events. Must be a medically recognised illness, or a shock induced physical condition.