Nervous Shock

Question 1

Definition of Nervous Shock & Case

Answer 1

NS claim must involve actual recognised psych condition capable of resulting from the shock of the event & recognised as having long term effects.

Reilly v Merseyside Regional Health Authority
- no liability found when couple trapped in lift as a result of negligent maintenance tried to claim from insomnia and claustrophobia

Question 2

Tredget v Bexley Health Authority

Answer 2

(unusual) parents of child born with serious injuries following medical negligence and died 2 days later. tried to claim and succeeded tho on basis that condition was no more than profound grief

Question 3

Vernon v Bosley (No 1)

Answer 3

part grief part severe shock

father witnessed children being drowned in car negligently driven by nanny. recovered damages for nervous shock as it was partly result of pathological grief and bereavement and partly trauma of witnessing event

Question 4

Dulieu v White & Sons

Answer 4

fear 4 own safety & primary victim

woman suffered ns when horse and van negligently driven burst through window of pub she was washing glasses and suffered miscarriage.

claim successful cuz she feared for her own safety

Question 5

Chadwick v British Railway Board

Answer 5

fear 4 own safety

two trains crashed in a tunnel and man who lived nearby was asked to crawl into wreckage because of his small size to administer injections to injured.

claimed successfully for anxiety neurosis

Question 6

Hambrook v Stokes Bros

Answer 6

fear 4 safety of others - close fam

mom saw runaway lorry going downhill to where her 3 children were and heard that there was a child injured,

claimed successfully cuz she feared for the safety of her children, can claim if feared for own safety as well

Question 7

Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co.

Answer 7

fear 4 safety of others - close but not related

crane driver claimed successfully for ns when he saw load fall and thought that his colleagues were underneath and would be injured

opposing case: roberson and rough v forth road bridge joint board

Question 8

King v Phillips (70yards)

Answer 8

area of impact/shock

mom 70 yards away saw taxi reverse into child’s bicycle and presumed him to be injured

claim unsuccessful as she was physically too far away from incident and outside of D’s foresight

Question 9

Bourhill v Young

Answer 9

area of impact/shock

pregnant woman got off tram and heard motorcyclist crash, saw blood and gave birth to stillborn

unsuccessful as stranger to motorcyclist and outside area of foreseeable shock

Question 10

Hale v London Underground

Answer 10

immediate aftermath & rescuer

fireman suffered ptsd after rescuing in king’s cross fire. claimed successfully

Question 11

McFarlane v EE Caledonia

Answer 11

immediate aftermath & bystander

person helping to receive casualties from the piper alpha oilrig failed as he was classified as a mere bystander rather than rescuer at the scene

Question 12

McLoughlin v O’Brian

Answer 12

immediate aftermath & secondary victim

woman summoned to hospital an hour after her 3 children and husband was involved in a car crash. one died and other 2 badly injured and yet to be cleaned up. hol held relationship sufficiently close and woman was present at ‘immediate aftermath’ so approved

Question 13

North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters

Answer 13

sudden/gradual shock

doctors negligent failed to diagnose baby with hepatitis and needed liver transplant. child died from severe brain damage 36 hours later.

successful as it was a continuous chain of events

Question 14

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority

Answer 14

gradual shock

father claimed unsuccessfully for ns when watching his son die cuz of medical negligence over a period of 14 days

no claim as no sudden appreciation of a horrifying event

Question 15

factors in determining whether a party can recover

Answer 15

1. proximity in time and space to negligent incident:
   - at incident/immediate aftermath witnessed or experienced directly
2. proximity in relationship with victim
   - existence of close tie of love and affection
   - rescuer present at scene
3. cause of nervous shock must be result of witnessing/hearing of horrifying event/immediate aftermath

Question 16

primary victim & cases

Answer 16

present at scene injured/feared of being injured

PSD

page v smith
simmons v british steel
dulieu v white & sons co.

Question 17

Page v Smith

Answer 17

primary victim (thin skull rule applies)

page involved in car accident following d’s negligence.
no physical injury but suffered relapse of cfs
d liable for psych injury and thin skull rule applies

Question 18

Simmons v British Steel

Answer 18

primary victim

c injured cuz of employer’s negligence then suffered worsening of psoriasis and depressive illness leading to personality change.
d liable as c was primary victim

Question 19

Taylor v Somerset HA

Answer 19

secondary victim (fairly fine definitions re: immediate aftermath)

c’s husband suffered fatal heart attack at work and only told her was taken to hospital.
in hospital: he is ded
tried to claim for ns but unsuccessful as held that purpose of visit was to identify body in mortuary and nothing to do with cause of death

Question 20

Duncan v British Steel

Answer 20

rescuer (who qualifies uncertain)

no liability when a miner saw colleague crushed in roof fall

held that he was not in danger himself and no close enough tie

Question 21

Greatorex v Greatorex

Answer 21

rescuer can claim as secondary victim if satisfies requirements

fire officer attended the scene of accident caused by son’s negligence. attended to son and tried to claim for nervous shock.

unsuccessful cuz of conflict between family members but obiter that it was possible if son wasn’t cause of accident

Question 22

secondary victim & cases

Answer 22

those who able to show close ties of love and affection to victim of incident/immediate aftermath at close hand

MT

McLoughlin v O’Brian
Taylor v Somerset HA

Question 23

rescuer & cases

Answer 23

primary victim & at risk in circumstance of incident, causing ns

HDG

Hale v London Underground
Duncan v British Coal
Greatorex v Greatorex

Question 24

classifications that cannot claim

Answer 24

bngn

bystanders
no close tie of love and affection
gradual rather than sudden shock
no causal link between incident and damage

Question 25

bystanders cases

Answer 25

Bourhill v Young

McFarlane v EE Caledonia

Question 26

no close tie of love and affection case

Answer 26

Robertson & Rough v Fourth Road Bridge Joint Board

Question 27

gradual rather than sudden shock case

Answer 27

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority

Question 28

no causal link between incident and damage

Answer 28

Calascione v Dixon

D responsible for death of 20yo in motorcycle accident
no claim for psych injuries of 20yo mom cuz her psych injury more the stress of the inquest and prosecution than the incident itself

Question 29

Chadwick v British Railways Board

Answer 29

anxiety neurosis from going into train wreckage to administer injection to injured. claimed successfully

Question 30

Atkins v Seghal

Answer 30

mom told of daughter’s death by police officer, only saw body two hours later. held as immediate aftermath