Nervous Shock

Question 1

Bourhill v Young

Answer 1

Psychiatric damage recognised separately to physical harm (subsequent physical manifestation of shock)
Claimant must have customary fortitude - not reasonably foreseeable to suffer NS from seeing blood

Question 2

Dulieu v White

Answer 2

Not injured by suffered psychiatric reaction to a horse crashing through a window

Question 3

Hinz v Berry

Answer 3

Could claim for shock of witnessing the accident which killed her husband and children, not subsequent grief or stress

Question 4

Reilly v Merseyside HA

Answer 4

Cannot claim for normal human emotions (stuck in a lift)

Question 5

Vernon v Bosley

Answer 5

Pathological grief syndrome could be claimed for (saw his children drown)

Question 6

Alcock v CC South Yorkshire

Answer 6

Primary victim - feared for their own safety, involved in event
Secondary victim - fears for another’s safety
1) Loss is a recognised psychiatric illness
2) Psychiatric damage must be reasonably foreseeable
3) Proximity of relationship between victim and claimant - parent/child and spouses only
4) Proximity in time and space - arriving 6 hours later not sufficient
5) Loss caused by sudden shock - manner of perception (own unaided senses) - sudden appreciation of horrific event
6) Fair, just and reasonable

Question 7

Chadwick v British Railways Board

Answer 7

Doctor treated victims of a train crash - in the danger zone (unstable train) so primary victim

Question 8

Cullin v London Fire Services

Answer 8

Returned to burning building to help colleagues - primary victim (sympathetic towards rescuers)

Question 9

McFarlane v EE Caledonia

Answer 9

Group on a boat near an oil spill were not in any danger (not reasonable fear) - secondary victims

Question 10

White v CC South Yorkshire

Answer 10

Police officers attending Hillsborough disaster were never in any danger - secondary victim

Question 11

Brice v Brown

Answer 11

Thin skull rule - if a reasonable person would suffer psychiatric damage, then all loss is recoverable even if they suffer worse harm (involved in taxi accident that triggered pre-existing condition)

Question 12

Page v Smith

Answer 12

Thin skull rule - road accident worsened pre-existing condition

Question 13

Greatorex v Greatorex

Answer 13

Cannot claim if the actual victim is the defendant

Question 14

McLoughlin v O’Brian

Answer 14

Mother arrived at hospital an hour later and saw her injured family - allowed as she came across the immediate aftermath

Question 15

Taylor v A Novo

Answer 15

Claimant witnessed her mother die 3 months after initial accident - did not satisfy requirement of witnessing accident or immediate aftermath

Question 16

Sion v Hampstead HA

Answer 16

Father claimed for psychiatric damage after witnessing the death of his terminally ill son - not allowed as not triggered by one shocking event

Question 17

North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters

Answer 17

Mother witnessed the negligent care of her son - series of occurrences which constituted an event - claim succeeded

Question 18

W v Essex

Answer 18

Policy considerations - foster child abused parents’ own children - did not see it and were only told about it - did not succeed