Psych Injury Duty of Care Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Steps to establishing duty of care for psychiatric injury

A

a) Proof of psychiatric illness

b) Primary or secondary victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Psychiatric illness: PTSD

A

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Psychiatric illness: ME/chronic fatigue

A

Page v Smith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Psychiatric illness: Gambling addiction

A

Calvert v William Hill Credit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Primary victim test

A

Mediately or immediately involved (Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire)
‘Zone of foreseeable physical danger or reasonable belief that they are in that zone’ (White v CC of South Yorkshire)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Limitations to the strict definition of primary victim

A

W v Essex CC (foster child sexual abuse)

In Re Organ Retention Group Litigation (stillborn children organs retained)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

‘Zone of foreseeable danger’

A

Foreseeability of physical injury (Page v Smith), did not matter if the actual injury was not physical

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

“Foreseeability” narrowed for zone of foreseeable danger

A

Foreseeability must be about immediate injury, not an injury very long from now that may not even take place (Grieves v FT Everard) (absestos; pleural plaques)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Negligent primary victim - secondary victim

A

No liability (Greatorex v Greatorex)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Secondary victim test

A

4 proximities (Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire)

a) Proximity of relationship
b) Proximity of time/space
c) Perception by own sight/hearing
d) Shock

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Proximity of relationship

A

Close ties of love and affection

a) Presumed e.g. parent-child, married couple (see engaged couple)
b) Proven (e.g. brother-in-law in Alcock failed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Proximity in time/space

A

Used to be strict approach (e.g. lapse of time, prior knowledge = no proximity)
Now more flexible (Galli-Atkinson v Seghal)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Perception by own sight/hearing

A

Witnesses that were not present ruled out
Uncertainty re ability to identify individuals even if the person was watching it e.g. children in hot air balloon (Alcock)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

“Shock”

A

= Sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind
Starting point: dramatic, unexpected event
Now more flexible where the shock is not experienced in a moment but over a sequence of events (North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Employees e.g. rescuers

A

No special protection (White v CC of South Yorkshire)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How to determine if psychiatric injury is reasonably foreseeable in the workplace

A

Hale LJ, Hatton v Sutherland

a) Must foresee psych illness, not just stress
b) No particular jobs are more likely than others
c) Employers may assume that employees are competent
d) Provision of mental health support important

17
Q

Employer’s negligence leads employees to witness traumatic event

A

Apply primary/secondary victim test, rather than general duty of care test (Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust, in particular: Melville v Home Office) (suicide prison officer, cut down bodies)

18
Q

Extension of employer-employee negligence liability to prisoners

A

Butchart v Home Office (cell mate commits suicide)