negligence and psychiatric harm

Question 1

Hinz v berry

Answer 1

can only claim for recognised psychiatric harm. Damages for grief or sorrow by a person’s death is not rewarded

Question 2

Policy concern

Answer 2

a wide field on imaginary claims (blame culture).

Question 3

Coultas

Answer 3

gatekeeper invited woman to cross railway but train was coming. No collision but c claimed for shock. Not successful.

Question 4

White

Answer 4

van crashed into pub and c suffered miscarriage resulting from fear of personal injury. Succeeded. C must be in the zone of physical risk where reasonable fear or apprehension of danger to one’s physical safety can arise.

Question 5

Stokes

Answer 5

truck injured c’s child but did not see the accident. C apprehended danger through her own unaided senses

Question 6

Bourhill v young

Answer 6

applied the zone of physical risk approach

Question 7

Hillsborough disaster

Answer 7

identifying bodies 8 hours later was outside immediate aftermath. TV broadcasts liability may ariser only of the broadcaster breaches relevant guidelines and shows scenes of individual suffering.

Question 8

Attia

Answer 8

house burned down due to D’s workmen. Recovered compensation for psychiatric harm as they were in a commercial relationship so a high level of proximity existed between c and d.

Question 9

eggshell rule

Answer 9

applies
eg v already suffering ptsd