Negligence Duty of Care Psychiatric Damage Flashcards

1
Q

What is Psychiatric Damage

A

A recognised illness of the mind ie PTSD, Depression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the issues in pure Psychiatric claims

A

1) fraudulent claims
2) Wheather PD is indipendantly recoverable irrespective of if physical harm was also a risk
3) opening the floodgates (ie major disaster Hillsborough)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What about frudulent claims?

A

Can only claim if have been diagnosed with a recogined illness of the mind by a competant doctor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Is PD is indipendantly recoverable irrespective of if physical harm was also a risk

A

Not a simple Yes no awnser courts have developed the following catagories
1) Actual victim
2) primary Victim
3) secondary victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is an Actual Victim

A

An actual victim is one who has a PD alsongside a physical injury damage for PD is recoverable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is a Prmiary Victim

A

A Primary Victim is one that was at risk of physical injury”in the danager zone” but did not receive on but has developed a PD as a result of the incident subject to other issues regarding foreseeablity etc damages are recoverable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is a Secondary Victim

A

A secondary Victim is one who witnessed a traumatic event but without having been in actual damage “ not in the danger zone” generally damages are not recoverable as a duty of care is not normally establish unless a set criteria is meet

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Can damages be recovered for pd for anxierty that a symptomless physical condition may develop in the future

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Does witnessing an event happening to others grant right of compensation for PD

A

No cetain conditions must be met first
1) Illness arose as a result of witnessing an incident involving a primary victim to whom there was a tie of close love an affection
2) The promimity in time and space between the accident and the claimant witnessing it or its immediate aftermath
3) has to result from witnessing with their own unaided senses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is deemed a close tie of love an affection

A

Spouse/Children /mother/ father ie close relations can be extended to work collegues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is deemed as proxdimity in time and space

A

Time witnessed first hand or the imediate aftermath - can extend quite some time
Space - Frozen in time failure to beielive until seen with own eyes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Whats is demed as own unaided senses

A

Seen for themselves not through being told by someone else or witnessing it in newspaper/TV

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is an Involentery Participant

A

Someone who beleive that they are involenery responsible for the death or Injury of a workmate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is Foreseeabily of Harm for secondaty Victims

A

Seeks to exclude those who are abnormally sensitive with a caviat that if a person a reasonable fortitued would have suffered such an illness that a sensitive person may recover damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Can damages be recovered if the incident happneds over time

A

No Event must be a shocking event rather then a gradual realisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Can damages be recovered when the defendant casued their own injuries

A

No if the defendant has acted negligently then irrespective of close ties of love an affection damages can not be awarded

17
Q

CASE LAW - Was the claimant in Physical danger Yes (Pimary victim) - damages recoverable

A

Dulieu V White 1901 - Horese & cart driven into a bar Dulieu(pregnant) gave birth premiturely
&
Donachie V Cheif Constable of Greater Manchester Poilce 2004 Police officer tryimg to attach a faulty device to a suspects car the suspect was known to be violent

18
Q

CASE LAW - Was the claimant in Physical danger Yes (Pimary victim) - - Rescuers - damages recoverable

A

Chadwick V British Transport Police 1967

19
Q

CASE LAW - Was the claimant in Physical danger no (Secondary victim) - Witnessed the event /Aftermath first hand - damages recoverable

A

Hinz V Berry 1970 Wife saw the immediate aftermath of a crash involving husband and children who were all injured
&
Hambrook V Stokes 1925 - Witness lorry running out of control to where she throught her children were
McLoughlin V O’Brien 1983 - Told about incident some hours after the event but saw injuries first hand

20
Q

CASE LAW - Was the claimant in Physical danger no (Secondary victim) - Bystanders - No damages recoverable

A

Bourhill V Young 1943 heard crash saw blood some time later no tie of affection
& Mcfarlane V EE Caledonia 1994 Witnessed the Piper Alpha disaster but never in actual danager

21
Q

CASE LAW - Was the claimant in Physical danger no (Secondary victim - Rescuers - No Damages

A

White V Cheif Constable South Yorkshire Police ( LEADING CASE for Resuers)
Mcfarlane V EE Caledonia 1994

22
Q

CASE LAW - Was the claimant in Physical danger no (Secondary victim )- Close tie of love an affection yes did not witness event with unadied senses saw on TV - No Damages

A

Alcock V Cheif constable of South Yorkshire Police 1991 (LEADING CASE ON SECONDARY VICTIMS SET THE TESTS)

23
Q

CASE LAW -Involentery Participant - Was the claimant in Physical danger no (Secondary victim ) Witnessed Event first hand- Damages recovered

A

Dooley V Cammell Larid 1951 - rope broke and he witnessed the death of work collegue

24
Q

CASE LAW -Involentery Participant - Was the claimant in Physical danger no (Secondary victim ) did not witnessed event first hand-
No Damages recovered

A

Hunter V British Coal 1998 - Thought hed caused the accident - did not witness the event no recovery for survuviours guilt

25
Q

CASE LAW - Defined Primary Victim

A

Page V Smith 1995