Negligence: Defences

Question 1

What conditions must be met for a psychiatric harm claim?

Answer 1

Harm must be a medically recognised psychiatric condition (e.g., PTSD, depression).

Mere emotional distress is non-compensable (Reilly v Merseyside HA [1994]).

Question 2

Distinguish between primary and secondary victims in psychiatric harm claims.

Answer 2

Primary Victims: In physical danger; psychiatric harm claim possible if personal injury is foreseeable (Page v Smith [1996]).

Secondary Victims: Witness harm to others; subject to Alcock control mechanisms.

Question 3

What are the control mechanisms for secondary victims outlined in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992]?

Answer 3

Foreseeability:
Psychiatric harm must be reasonably
foreseeable.

Proximity:
Relationship: Close tie of love and affection (McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983]).

Time and Space:
Witness event or immediate aftermath.

Sudden Shock:
Resulting from a single, traumatic event (North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002]).

Fair, Just, and Reasonable:
Balance fairness and prevent fraudulent claims.

Question 4

Page v Smith [1996] – Summary

Answer 4

Facts: Claimant in a car accident; no physical injury but suffered psychiatric harm.

Legal Issue: Is foreseeability of personal injury enough for duty in psychiatric harm cases?

Held: Yes. If personal injury (physical or psychiatric) is foreseeable, duty applies to psychiatric harm.

Question 5

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] – Summary

Answer 5

Facts: Relatives of Hillsborough victims claimed psychiatric harm from watching the tragedy.

Legal Issue: What are the conditions for secondary victim claims?

Held: Introduced control mechanisms (foreseeability, proximity, sudden shock, fairness). Most claims failed due to lack of proximity or shock.

Question 6

What are the arguments for and against expanding liability for psychiatric harm?

Answer 6

For Expansion:
Reflect societal changes (McLoughlin).
Address genuine harm and fairness.

Against Expansion:
Floodgates Argument: Too many claims (Alcock).
Crushing Liability: Financial burden on defendants.
Evidentiary challenges and fraudulent claims (White).

Question 7

Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] – Summary

Answer 7

Facts: Rescuer helped victims in a train crash and suffered psychiatric harm.

Legal Issue: Can rescuers claim for psychiatric harm?

Held: Yes. Rescuers are primary victims if exposed to danger and suffer psychiatric harm.