Duty of Care and Psychiartic Harm/ Economic Loss

Question 1

Dulie v White and Sons

Answer 1

First case where psychiatric Harm was recognised.

Question 2

Hinz v Berry

Answer 2

One cannot claim for grief and anxiety

Question 3

Primary Victim

Answer 3

Could potentially or was at risk of future harm.

Question 4

Does solely being a primary victim entitle someone to a duty of care

Answer 4

yes

Question 5

Eggshell Skull Rules

Answer 5

Recover damages for all harm of that type he suffered, even if the extent is considerably greater than might have been reasonably foreseen

Question 6

How do you know when a duty of care is owed a to a secondary victim

Answer 6

The Alcock Criteria

Question 7

Alcock Criteria 0

Answer 7

Close relationship of love and affection
Witness the accident or its immediate aftermath
Sudden shock

Question 8

Page V smith

Answer 8

Duty of care owed to the victim of a car crash due to the psychiatric harm suffered after the crash. - Chronic Fatigue syndrome.

Question 9

Corr v Ibc Vehicles

Answer 9

Claimant suffered head injuries as a result of employer negligence.
Claimant suffered depression and subsequently committed suicide.
Should the defendant be liable for just the head injury or the depression and suicide as well?
Employer liable for full extent of loss - Eggshell skull principle applied.

Question 10

Rothwell v Chemical Insulating

Answer 10

Claimants suffering fear and anxiety due to possibility of future illness after asbestos exposure was not actionable

Question 11

Bourchill v Young

Answer 11

D was not liable to the psychiatric illness suffered by C a secondary victim. It was not foreseeable that C would suffer psychiatric harm as a result of D negligently causing a loud traffic accident nor was C sufficiently proximate to the scene of the crash itself.

Question 12

Close relationship of love and affection

Answer 12

Only presumed to be between parent and child and spouses.

Siblings are not presumed to have this close tie of love and affection.

Question 13

Alcock v Chief Constable of south Yorkshire police

Answer 13

No claim for claimants who saw their loved ones 9 hours after the incident in a mortuary for the purposes of identification. - No sudden shock or witness of the accident or its immediate aftermath

Question 14

Palmer v Tees

Answer 14

Mother claim failed for the psychiatric illness she suffered when her daughter was kidnaped. It was her own imagination which caused her suffering not what was actually happening to her child.

Question 15

Taylor v Novo

Answer 15

Daughter witnessed her mother die but did not see the accident which caused her mothers death - her claim failed for psychiatric harm.

Question 16

Wild v Southend University Hospital

Answer 16

Mother had a still birth due to hospital negligence. The hospital was not liable to the father for the psychiatric illness he suffered because there was no sudden shock as the father would have experienced a growing anxiety as it become apparent that something was wrong. Also he did not witness his baby’s death just his dead baby being delivered.

Question 17

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

Answer 17

Some secondary victims heard about the accident through Tv and Radio broadcast. They did not meet the sudden shock requirement because they did not experience the incident through their own unaided senses.

Question 18

Sion v Hampstead Heath Authority

Answer 18

Father witnessed his child die due to the negligence of the hospital.
No sudden shock requirement satisfied because he watched his child deteriorate over a two week period

Question 19

North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters

Answer 19

Baby fell ill due to negligence of the hospital
Mother held baby as it fell into a coma and died after 36 hours.
Considered sudden shock due to uninterrupted sequence of events.

Question 20

Liverpool Women’s Hospital v Ronayne

Answer 20

Claim failed on the element of sudden shock

The hospital prepared the husband for what he should to expect.

Question 21

Rescuers as a primary Victim

Answer 21

Unlikely to be in physical danger themselves as they are trained to be in these positions safely. Applied during Aclock case where police who suffered psychiatric illness failed when bringing their claim - Case - White c Chief constable of south Yorkshire police.

Question 22

Rescuers as a secondary victim

Answer 22

Their claim will almost always fail as they will not have close ties of love and affection with the person they are saving

Question 23

Dooley v Camel Laird

Answer 23

Rope snapped due to employee negligence
Operator of the crane thought this had led tot the death of someone else.
He is not the average secondary victim because he was involved.

Question 24

Involuntary Participant

Answer 24

Where the defendant puts the claimant in a position where they feel responsible for the harm which has occurred to someone else. 
Test applied (in Dooley) is whether psychiatric harm was reasonably foreseeable.

Question 25

Test for occupation stress

Answer 25

Whether psychiatric harm was reasonably foreseeable in that specific person

Question 26

Barber v Somerset

Answer 26

Teacher ended up working 60 hours a week
Teacher made his superiors aware he was feeling overwhelmed - psychiatric harm became reasonably foreseeable once the employee has spoken to their manager - Lady Hale

Question 27

Hartman v South Essex mental health and community care trust

Answer 27

Employee had to cut fown a person who attempted suicide
Employee had to attempt revival after
Although the employee did not bring these stresses to the attention of the employer the experience was so traumatic that they should have offered care after the experience

Question 28

Butchart v Home office

Answer 28

Prisoner told the prison that he was feeling depressed and suicidal, Prison reacted by putting him with another suicidal prisoner. Prisoner eventually took his own life .
This reaction was reasonably foreseeable to the prison staff as he had already made his mind state clear to the prison.