2. Psychiatric Injury

Question 1

background to psychiatric injury

Answer 1

old terminology nervous shock

courts have adopted a restrictive approach as to when a DOC is owed

problems have arisen in past because:
- to be nervous shock, the injury must be a recognised psychiatric condition
- C must fall into category accepted as being entitled to claim

Question 2

criteria for psychiatric injury

Answer 2

(1) psychiatric harm
(2) categories of shock victim

Question 3

explain psychiatric harm

Answer 3

psychiatric harm: form of psychiatric illness that C suffered as a result of the perception of traumatic events

must be:
(a) medically recognised psychiatric illness OR
(b) shock induced physical condition

C must have actual recognised psychiatric condition capable of resulting from the shock of the incident and recognised as having long term effects
- Reilly v MRHA: mere distress grief or fright not considered (normal)
- Tredget v BHA: unless profound (severe)

Question 4

explain categories of shock victim

Answer 4

Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire: to avoid opening floodgates of litigation, shock victims can fall into 2 broad groups to be entitled to claim:
- primary victim
- secondary victim

Question 5

explain primary victim

Answer 5

PV = unwilling ppts in the events causing shock
- directly involved in incident
- is or could have been physically injured in zone of danger

if personal injury is reasonably foreseeable, D will be liable

C doesn’t have to prove psychiatric injury was foreseeable due to thin skill rule (Page v Smith)

(a) reasonably fear for own safety (Dulieu v White & Sons)

(b) rescuers and reasonably fear for own safety (Chadwick v BTC)

(c) reasonably believe they are about to be or have been the involuntary cause of another’s death or injury (Dooley v Cammell Laird)

Question 6

explain secondary victim

Answer 6

Alcock: limit number of potential claims, C must satisfy criteria to be regarded as a foreseeable victim owed a DOC

(1) SV has close tie of love and affection to PV (McLoughlin v OBrian)
- presumed between spouses/children
- provide evidence
- rescuer that is NOT PV unlikely to succeed (White v CC of South Yorkshire)
- not a mere bystander (Bourhill v Young)

(2) physical proximity in time and space to accident (McLoughlin v OBrian)
- present at scene or witness immediate aftermath

(3) percieved the accident or aftermath with their own unaided senses (Hillsborough)
- EXCEPT when SVs only source of knowledge/info is from third party

Paul v Royal Wolverhampton doenst need to be caused by sudden shock, limited possibility of successful SV claims in medical negligence