Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Generally, a D who is negligent and causes pure psychiatric injury to a C…

- - - - Example: D negligently drove into pub. C was pregnant and suffered shock leading to miscarriage. Held the D owed a DOC to C. Why? physical injury was foreseeable but not suffered but the psychiatric injury was suffered.
- - - - 1. Foreseeability of psychiatric harm: was it reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude in the Cs position would suffer a psychiatric illness?
        
        2. proximity of relationship: if it is a relationship between parent/child, husband/wife, finance/ fiancee > presumption of a relationship of close ties and affection. If D knew that, although C falls into presumed category of love and affection, they were not close and can adduce evidence to that effect can rebut application of the presumption. If not in the categories, C must prove a close relationship of love and affection existed,
        
        Proximity in time and space and perception: C must be present at accident or its immediate aftermath; AND must see or hear the accident, or its immediate aftermath with own senses. If you see family in hospital straight after accident and they are in same condition = may satisfy test, but not if in mortuary 8 hrs later. must perceive via their own senses.
        
        exception to last condition > if broadcasters broke code and transmitted images of recognisable individuals suffers may amount to intervening act.