Negligence: Pure Psychiatric Harm Flashcards
What is the general rule for recovering damages for pure psychiatric harm?
- General Rule: A defendant does not owe a duty of care not to cause pure psychiatric harm unless certain exceptions apply.
- Key Issue: Lack of proximity between the claimant and defendant often means no duty is owed.
- Reason for Limitation: Prevents boundless liability to an indeterminate number of claimants.
Illustration:
* A train company negligently causes a rail crash, resulting in shock and psychiatric harm to hundreds of bystanders.
- Outcome: The bystanders lack proximity, so the train company owes no duty of care for psychiatric harm despite its negligence.
How is pure psychiatric harm defined, and how does it differ from consequential psychiatric harm?
- Pure Psychiatric Harm: Harm caused without any physical injury to the claimant. Examples include PTSD, phobias, or shock-induced physical conditions (e.g., miscarriage or heart attack).
- Consequential Psychiatric Harm: Psychiatric harm following physical injury.
Case Example:
* Pure Harm: A mother suffers PTSD after witnessing her child being hit by a car.
- Consequential Harm: A car crash victim develops anxiety after sustaining a physical injury.
What factors limit a defendant’s duty of care for pure psychiatric harm?
- Sudden Shock: Harm must result from a specific traumatic event (e.g., an accident or explosion).
* Gradual harm (e.g., depression from caregiving) is excluded, except in employment stress cases. - Medically Recognized Illness: Psychiatric harm must be a diagnosed condition, such as PTSD or severe depression.
* Anxiety or general worry does not qualify.
Case:
* Dulieu v White & Sons (1901): A barmaid suffered shock and miscarriage after a horse-drawn van crashed into her workplace. The shock was sudden and compensable.
What are the requirements for primary victims to claim damages for pure psychiatric harm?
- Definition: A primary victim is directly involved in the incident or reasonably believes they are in danger.
- Requirements:
- Physical injury must be foreseeable, even if it does not occur.
- Psychiatric harm need not be foreseeable.
Case:
* Page v Smith (1995): A minor car crash caused no physical injury but triggered the claimant’s chronic fatigue syndrome. Since physical injury was foreseeable, the defendant owed a duty of care for the psychiatric harm.
What is the Alcock test for secondary victims to establish a duty of care?
The Alcock control mechanisms require:
1. Foreseeability: Psychiatric harm to a person of normal fortitude must be foreseeable.
- Proximity of Relationship: A close relationship of love and affection must exist between the claimant and the immediate victim (e.g., parent-child).
- Proximity in Time and Space: The claimant must be present at the scene or its immediate aftermath.
- Proximity of Perception: The harm must be directly witnessed by the claimant through their own senses.
Case:
* Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991): Relatives of Hillsborough disaster victims failed to recover because they lacked sufficient proximity in time, space, or perception.
How does foreseeability differ for primary and secondary victims in pure psychiatric harm cases?
- Primary Victims: Foreseeability of physical injury is sufficient; psychiatric harm does not need to be foreseeable.
- Secondary Victims: Psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable to a person of normal fortitude in the claimant’s position.
Example:
* A mother witnessing her child being struck by a car would foreseeably suffer psychiatric harm.
How does proximity of relationship affect claims for secondary victims?
- Presumed Relationships: Parent-child, spouses, and fiancés have an automatic presumption of close ties.
- Other Relationships: Claimants must provide evidence of a close bond (e.g., siblings or close friends).
- Rebuttal of Presumption: Defendants can rebut presumed relationships by showing a lack of closeness.
Case:
* In McLoughlin v O’Brian (1982), the claimant was sufficiently close to her injured family to claim damages.
What is required for proximity in time, space, and perception in secondary victim claims?
- Proximity in Time and Space: The claimant must witness the event or its immediate aftermath.
* Case: McLoughlin v O’Brian (1982) – Arriving at the hospital one hour after the crash satisfied proximity requirements.
- Contrast: In Alcock, a claimant who identified a relative eight hours later failed the proximity test.
- Proximity of Perception: Harm must be directly perceived through sight or hearing, not media reports.
- Case: In Alcock, live television footage of the disaster did not qualify as sufficient proximity of perception.
What is the fundamental distinction between primary and secondary victims?
- Primary Victims: Directly involved in the danger (e.g., being in a car crash). Duty arises if physical injury is foreseeable.
- Secondary Victims: Witness harm to others or fear for their safety. They must satisfy stricter Alcock requirements (foreseeability, proximity of relationship, time, space, and perception).
Case:
* Dulieu v White & Sons (1901): The barmaid, fearing for her safety, was classified as a primary victim.
- Alcock v Chief Constable (1991): Spectators of Hillsborough tragedy were secondary victims.
Can media broadcasts lead to liability for psychiatric harm to secondary victims?
- General Rule: Watching media reports does not satisfy proximity of perception.
- Exception: If broadcasts show identifiable individuals suffering, liability might arise.
- Case: In Alcock, claimants failed because TV broadcasts did not show identifiable victims.
What is the general rule for rescuers claiming damages for pure psychiatric harm?
Rescuers are treated like other claimants who suffer pure psychiatric harm:
- Primary Rescuers:
* A rescuer is classified as a primary victim if they were:
* In the actual area of danger or
* Reasonably believed themselves to be in danger.
* A duty of care is owed if there was a foreseeable risk of physical injury, even if the harm suffered is purely psychiatric. - Secondary Rescuers:
* A rescuer outside the area of danger or without fear of personal danger is a secondary victim.
- Secondary rescuers must satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms: foreseeability, proximity of relationship, and perception of the event.
Case Examples:
* White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1999): Police officers involved in rescue efforts at Hillsborough failed to establish a duty of care because they were not at physical risk and could not satisfy the Alcock requirements.
- Chadwick v British Railways Board (1967): A rescuer physically present at a train crash site was deemed a primary victim and succeeded in his claim for pure psychiatric harm.
What conditions must a rescuer meet to be considered a primary victim?
A rescuer must be:
* Physically present in the area of danger or
* Involved in rescue activities where they reasonably believed themselves to be in danger.
Key Case:
* Chadwick v British Railways Board (1967):
* Facts: Mr. Chadwick, a rescuer, crawled into debris following a train crash to help victims.
- Outcome: He was classified as a primary victim because he was exposed to physical danger during his rescue efforts.
- Principle: Rescuers in physical danger are owed a duty of care for pure psychiatric harm.
Illustration: If a firefighter runs into a burning building to rescue individuals and later suffers PTSD, they qualify as a primary victim
What are the requirements for a rescuer to qualify as a secondary victim?
Secondary rescuers must satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms, which include:
- Foreseeability: It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude in the rescuer’s position would suffer psychiatric harm.
- Proximity of Relationship: The rescuer must have a close tie of love and affection with an immediate victim of the event.
- Proximity of Time and Space: The rescuer must be present at the event or its immediate aftermath.
- Proximity of Perception: The rescuer must directly see or hear the accident or its immediate aftermath.
Case Example:
- White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1999): Police officers present at Hillsborough did not qualify as secondary victims because they lacked ties of love and affection with the victims.
Illustration: A rescuer who witnesses an accident from a distance, without knowing the victims personally, may fail to meet the proximity of relationship test.
How does foreseeability apply to rescuers claiming psychiatric harm?
- For primary victims (including rescuers in danger):
- Physical injury must be foreseeable, but psychiatric harm need not be.
- Example: A firefighter involved in an explosion but unharmed physically can recover for psychiatric harm.
- For secondary victims (rescuers outside danger):
- It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude in their position would suffer psychiatric harm.
Case Example:
- White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1999): The police officers were not held to a higher standard of fortitude. Rescuers are not expected to endure more psychological stress than an average person.
What is the role of the egg-shell skull rule in rescuers’ psychiatric harm claims?
- Rule: Defendants must take victims as they find them, including psychiatric vulnerabilities.
- Application:
- If a rescuer is more vulnerable to psychiatric harm due to pre-existing conditions, they can recover for the full extent of their injury.
- The extent of harm need not be foreseeable, only the type of harm (e.g., psychiatric illness).
Case Example:
- Page v Smith (1995): A claimant with a pre-existing psychiatric condition recovered damages even though the full extent of the harm was unforeseeable.
Illustration: A paramedic with a history of PTSD suffers exacerbated harm after a shocking rescue event. The defendant is liable for the full harm caused.
