Nervous shock Flashcards
What must you distinguish between in a Nervous Shock question?
Primary and secondary victims
What is nervous shock?
A medically diagnosed psychiatric illness
e.g. PTSD, anxiety neurosis, OCD, clinical depression
What are primary victims?
Those physically injured in the event caused by the D, and psychiatrically injured as a result
OR
Those put in danger of physical injury but get psychiatrically injured instead
Give 2 case law examples of primary victims
Dulieu v White [1901]
Page v Smith [1995]
Briefly describe Dulieu v White [1901]
C was pregnant and working behind the bar in a pub, when D’s horse and cart crashed into the pub.
C was not physically injured but suffered shock.
C gave birth 9 days premature and the child suffered developmental problems.
Held:
D was negligent.
They had caused C to the fear for her safety causing nervous shock, and this was followed by physical damage.
Briefly describe Page v Smith [1995]
C suffered from ME and was in recovery when he was hit by a car due to D’s negligence.
C was not physically injured but his ME was triggered and became chronic, so he couldn’t return to his job.
Held:
Some kind of personal injury was foreseeable, so it didn’t matter whether the injury was physical or psychiatric.
(Also thin skull rule)
What is a secondary victim?
Why does this have very strict requirements?
Somebody not put in physical danger,
but suffers psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing such injury to others
The judge expects people to have a stiff upper lip,
-> even if they witnessed a traumatic event they should accept it.
Which 2 cases involve secondary victims?
Bourhill v Young [1943]
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991]
Briefly describe Bourhill v Young [1943]
D negligently rode his motorcycle, causing a crash.
He died.
C got off a tram and heard the crash.
C walked past the scene after D’s body was removed and witnessed the immediate aftermath.
C went into shock and later gave birth to a stillborn child.
Held:
It was not foreseeable that C would suffer harm, nor was C sufficiently proximate to the scene, therefore no duty of care was owed to C.
D was not liable for any psychiatric harm that C suffered as a result of his negligence.
Briefly describe Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991]
Hillsborough Stadium disaster, where 95 people died.
Cs watched the event on TV and others were on the other side of the stadium and witnessed people die.
All claimed damages for psychiatric harm.
Held:
No C met the conditions of a secondary victim so the case was dismissed.
What are the criteria for a secondary victim?
- Close tie of lover and affection to a primary victim
- Appreciation of the event with their own unaided senses
- Psychiatric harm must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event
- Proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath
Which 2 cases successfully establish a secondary victim?
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1982]
Attia v British Gas [1988]
Briefly explain McLoughlin v O’Brian [1982]
C’s husband and children were involved in a serious car crash due to a D’s negligence.
1 child was killed.
C arrived at the hospital and saw her family suffering before they had been treated.
She suffered severe shock, depression and a personality change.
Held:
C was entitled to recover damages for the psychiatric injury as she had witnessed the immediate aftermath of the event.
Briefly explain Attia v British Gas [1998]
C engaged D to instal new central heating system in her home.
When C returned home, her loft was on fire.
Fire causes substantial damage to the home and belongings, which she witnessed first-hand.
C sued for nervous shock.
Held:
No reason to limit recovery of damages for psychiatric harm as a result of property damage.
D was liable.
