DOC: Psychiatric Injury

Question 1

The Big 4 Cases:

Answer 1

McLoughlin v O’Brien

Alcock v Chief Constable

White & Others v Chief Constable

Page v Smith

Question 2

McLoughlin v O’Brien

Answer 2

HL said Donoghue test does not apply to psychiatric illness

Question 3

Has to be a recognised psychiatric illness

Answer 3

PTSD: Alcock v Chief Constable
ME: Page v Smith

Question 4

How do courts decide if a condition is a recognised psychiatric illness?

Answer 4

Calvert v William Hill

• look in the DSM by APA
• seems like fine line to a medical lay-man but it isn’t

Question 5

Vernon v Bosley, Thorpe LJ

Answer 5

Mere grief v Pathological Grief Disorder (seems a bit fine line)

Question 6

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

Answer 6

Both need reasonable foreseeability of damage:

PRIMARY - mediately (drawn in e.g. rescuers and unwitting instruments) and immediately (involved at the time)

SECONDARY - not involved at the time

Secondary has extra requirements

Question 7

Secondary Victims extra requirements:

Answer 7

1) proximity of relationship
2) proximity of time and space
3) proximity of perception
4) “shock”

Question 8

Proximity of Time & Space

Answer 8

PRESENT IN IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH

McLoughlin - aftermath extended forward and spatially away from scene of accident

Benson v Lee - mother ran 100 yards from home to see unconscious body of son

Fenn v City of Peterborough - man arrived home minutes after a gas explosion killed 3 children

Question 9

Galli-Atkinson v Seghal

Answer 9

uninterrupted sequence of events means accident’s immediate aftermath extends to the moment C left the morgue

(diff from Alcock because C didn’t know X was dead there)

Question 10

No liability if told by 3rd Party

Answer 10

Ravenscrof v Rederiaktiebolaget

Question 11

Palmer v Tees Health Authority

Answer 11

no proximity of perception even though C’s fears were true

Question 12

AB v Tameside & Glossop Health Authority

Answer 12

No negligence in C breaking news by letter rather than face-to-face

So, no liability for communicating distressing news?

Question 13

Alin v City & Hackney Health Authority

Answer 13

(Not authority because D conceded a DOC)

But seems to be liability for communicating erroneous information

Question 14

“Shock”

Answer 14

Lord Akner - sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event which violently agitates the mind

(36 hour sequence = single event)

Question 15

White & others v Chief Constable

Answer 15

NEW PRIMARY VICTIM TEST

• PV = those within (or reasonably believe themselves to be in) the zone of foreseeable physical danger

Question 16

W v Essex County Council

Answer 16

Foster parents would fail secondary victim test but do not fall within White’s PV test
- but they were allowed the claim

Question 17

Re Organ Retention Group

Answer 17

Lack of clarity: PV category not closed?

• but parents were patients sort of
• and no PV here anyway

Question 18

Page v Smith

Answer 18

if you’re a PV you have do show foreseeability in damage

This case says it can be foreseeability of PHYSICAL damage not just psychiatric

ANY kind of injury that is reasonably foreseeable = fine

Question 19

Grieves v FT Everard & Sons

Answer 19

retreat from Page

• distinguished the case by saying it was too long-term and delayed (+ intervening event)
• so Page only applies to foreseeability of immediate risk of physical damage

Question 20

Greatorex v Greatorex

Answer 20

C cannot claim against D if D is also a PV

• this involves interference with person’s right to self-determination

Question 21

Hatton v Sutherland

Answer 21

employer owe a DOC if injury was foreseeable (occupational stress)

DOC is relieved by counselling services