Psychatric Harm Flashcards
(13 cards)
What legal principle did the case Dulieu V White (1901) set out?
Legal Principle: A claim can be made if the victim fears for the own safety.
What legal principle did the case Hambrook V Stokes (1925) set out?
Legal Principle: Extended the principle of Dulieu V White to fear for a family member.
What legal principle did the case Bourhill V Young (1943) set out?
Legal Principle: Extended the mental injury must be caused by injury to a family member.
What legal principle did the case McLoughlin V O’Brain (1982) set out?
Legal principle: a duty is owed to family members.
What legal principle did the case Page V Smith set out?
Legal principle: two principle for nervous shock:
1. Can claim by someone for ties of love and affection
2. Shock was suffered at the scene or in the aftermath
What legal principle did the case Alcock V Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) set out?
Legal principle: set out the authority for the Alcock criteria
What legal principle did the case Chadwick V British Rail (1967) set out?
Legal Principle: Rescuer claims are allowed if they are primary victims.
What legal principle did the case White V Chief constable of South Yorkshire set out?
Legal principle: If a rescuer is not a physical risk they are a secondary victim and will need to satisfy the Alcock criteria
What legal principle did the case McFarlane V E E Caledonia (1994) set out?
Legal principle: Bystanders are secondary victims and need to satisfy the Alcock criteria
What legal principle did the case Attia V British Gas (1987) set out?
Legal Principle: property owners may claim for psychiatric injury if they witness their property destroyed.
What legal principle did the case Sion V Hampstead Health Authority (1994) set out?
Legal Principle: Shock needs to be suffered as a result of a sudden event, 14 days was too long.
What legal principle did the case North Glamorgan NHS Trust V Walters (2002) set out?
Legal Principle: reaction to events happening over 36 hours can be considered as horrifying event.
What legal principle did the case Galli-Atkinson V Seghal (2003) set out?
Legal principle: reaction to events happening over 36 hours can be considered a horrifying event.
