PEL and Psychiatric Injury Flashcards
What is the general rule for pure economic loss?
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co – No recovery for pure economic loss unless an exception applies. Wire was negligently damages, that was actionable, but other losses that were PEL were not.
When is pure economic loss recoverable? (Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd)
(a) There is an assumption of responsibility
(b) A negligent misstatement was made
(c) Reasonable reliance on the statement
(d) The claimant suffered detriment or loss
Why was there no duty of care in Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA?
Because the misstatement was not made directly to the claimant, so no duty of care arose.
How can express assumption of responsibility arise? (Williams v Natural Life Health Foods)
Is there a special relationship?
Was reliance on the statement reasonable?
Objective test → Focus on actions/statements, not subjective intentions.
When can a duty of care exist even if services are informal or free? (Lejonvarn v Burgess)
If there is an assumption of responsibility in a professional context.
When might a professional not owe a duty of care for a misstatement? (NRAM Ltd v Steel)
No duty is owed by a solicitor towards the other party in a transaction who is not their client. Not reasonable for C to rely on misstatement.
How did White v Jones extend Hedley Byrne?
It applied to negligent services, allowing daughters to enforce a new will. This was based on policy considerations rather than doctrinal consistency.
What did Murphy v Brentwood District Council establish about PEL and property damage?
Damage to a structure itself = PEL (no recovery)
Damage to other property or people = Potential negligence claim
Carpet damage = recoverable; wallpaper damage = PEL
What must a claimant prove to recover for psychiatric injury? (Hinz v Berry)
They must suffer a diagnosable psychiatric illness, not just grief or emotional distress.
What are the requirements for secondary victims to be compensated? (McLoughlin v O’Brian - pre Alcock)
Reasonable fortitude
A sudden, horrifying event
Criteria later refined in Alcock.
case where womans family involved in road accident and she watched them die at hospital
What four criteria must secondary victims satisfy? (Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire)
Close tie of love & affection to a primary victim.
Appreciation of the event with own unaided senses.
Proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath.
Psychiatric harm caused by a sufficiently shocking event.
Why was the claim unsuccessful in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust?
Death was too remote, occurred 2 years after negligent act. ALSO, 2 party and 3 party distinction. How can a doctor owe a third party (not his patient) a duty of care? Incident vs accident. there needs to be an external cause that creates event for secondary victim. and, removed the shocking event criteria, how do we have a richter scale for how horrifying an event is?
What did Page v Smith establish about primary victims?
If a claimant was in the zone of foreseeable physical harm, they can claim for psychiatric injury without needing to prove Alcock criteria.
When can rescuers recover for psychiatric injury? (White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police)
Only if they were in the zone of physical danger, making them primary victims.
What were the Law Commission’s criticisms of the law on psychiatric injury? (Report No. 249, 1998)
The shock requirement is arbitrary.
Recovery for secondary victims should be expanded.
Proposed statutory presumption of close ties for family members.
What did Nolan & Bailey criticize about Page v Smith?
They argued it created inconsistencies with Alcock by defining primary victims too broadly.
What did Attia v British Gas say about property damage causing psychiatric harm?
C’s house burned down infront of her. Suffering in watching that was actionable. Controversial after Alcock.
What did Grieves v FT Everard & Sons Ltd say about primary victims?
C was exposed to asbestos in the workplace and was at risk of developing plueral plaques. Neither the risk of physical injury or anxiety were actionable damage. Risk must materialise to claim compensation, mere anxiety was not enough.
What did Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd say about unwitting participants?
Unwitting agents can recover psychiatric harm where they reasonably believed they had caused injury to others.
How did Monk v PC Harrington Ltd qualify Dooley?
The belief in responsibility that C caused the incident must be reasonable, not just genuine. It is an objective and subjective test.
How did Re Organ Retention Group Litigation expand primary victims?
Parents whose children’s organs were retained without consent were treated as primary victims because the tort directly involved the body of their loved one, with very personal and distressing implications. This blurs the line — they’re treated as primary victims because of the direct and personal nature of the wrong, even though it doesn’t involve the traditional zone of danger.
Is stress at work actionable?
Hatton v Sutherland: No liability unless psychiatric harm was foreseeable and reasonable precautions were not taken.
Barber v Somerset CC: Look at whether warning signs were ignored
Duties owed even where there’s no sudden event or nervous shock?
McLoughlin v Jones: A solicitor negligently failed to act properly in criminal defence work.
C developed psychiatric illness after wrongly serving time in prison due to this.
Court said a duty of care for psychiatric injury could exist in a professional negligence context, even though there was no sudden shock.
