Nervous Shock Flashcards
What must a plaintiff prove under nervous shock?
a plaintiff must prove that it was reasonably foreseeable that shock from the Injury would cause him to suffer injury of a psychiatric nature and where the plaintiff witnesses an event (though not directly involved) he must additionally prove a close relationship with the victim.
Explain the case of Bryne v. Southern Railway Co
Bryne v. Southern Railway Co - Recognised this harm. Pl was unhurt from his train crash but suffered psychiatric harm. Ct allowed recovery as he was in zone of physical danger - Primary victim
explain the case of Hambroke v Stock Bros and its importance - nervous shock
Hambroke v Stock Bros unattended vehicle rolled down a hill. The plaintiff witnessed the lorry roll down the hill after leaving her children in that area.
This case extended nervous shock beyond zone of physical danger; those who came upon its immediate aftermath and had a close proximate relationship with one of the victims.
Describe the case of Mcloughlin v O’Brien and Lord wilberforce requirements
In this case woman was at home when her husband and children were injured. She was informed by a passer-by and immediately travelled to the hospital where she saw her family in distress, suffered harm.
Lord wilberforce requirements 1. Close personal relationship 2. Come upon immediate aftermath and
3. Must witness the aftermath using unaided senses - communication not sufficient.
what is the difference between primary victims and secondary victims
Primary victims are entitled to recover regardless of whether their psychiatric injuries were foreseeable or not. Secondary victims must demonstrate both foreseeability and special factors of proximity
what is the 5 criteria for secondary victims
- Marital or parental relationship
- injury came from sudden or unexpected shock to the plaintiff’s nervous system.
- Plaintiff was either present personally or was in the more or less immediate vicinity and witness the aftermath shortly afterwards
- injury suffered arose from witnessing the death or extreme danger or injury and discomfort suffered by the primary victim.
- Must not only be physical proximity, but a close temporal connection between the event and plaintiff’s perception of it, combined with the relationship between victims.
what are the 5 rules Hamilton CJ set down for proximity of secondary victims in the case of Kelly v Hennessy
- Pl must establish that he or she actually suffered nervous shock;
- The recognisable illness was shock induced
- Nervous shock was caused by the defs act or omission;
- Must be by reason of actual or apprehended physical injury to the pl or a person other than the pl.
- Must show that the df. owed a duty of care not to cause him a reasonable forseeable injury of nervous shock.
What was the first Irish secondary victim case ?
Mullally v Bus Eireann was the first Irish secondary victim case - woman rushed to hospital after an accident and saw the injuries and suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result. This satisfied reasonable foreseeability.
what did Denham J consider in the case of Kelly v Hennessy - nervous shock
- Closeness of relationship
- closeness of the incident - Pl arrived here soon after they were injures
- Temporal proximity (immediacy of the injury after the accident occurred)
Describe the facts of the case of Curran v Cadbury that concerns perception of harm
a co-worker was still inside carrying out repairs. She gave evidence that she could hear his screaming and believed that she had either killed or seriously injured him and as a result of the incident she suffered psychiatric injury. The court found that the injuries suffered were a reasonably foreseeable result of the employer’s failure to take appropriate safety measures and awarded her damages.
Describe the facts of the Fletcher v Commissioner of Public works that concerns fear of disease
the plaintiff was employed by the
defendant and was negligently exposed to asbestos dust. When he learned about this he became very anxious and developed psychiatric illness. SC held that as the chance of him developing an illness was very remote, it would be unjust to impose liability. On account of distributive justice, as all employees would be anxious and would be unfair to grant recovery to some and not others, simply because some were medicated and some weren’t
is worry and stress a psychiatric injury.
In the recent decision of Murray v Budds, The supreme court confirmed that damages would not be awarded for worry and stress. arising from alleged failure to assign counsel the day before criminal trial as worry and stress is not a recognised psychiatric injury.r
what was held in the case of SC v The Minister for Health & children
Irivine J decided that it was a requirement that the illness be “shock induced”
