Psychiatric Harm Flashcards
What is psychiatric harm? (Case)
Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40
“In English law no damages are awarded for grief or sorrow caused by a person’s death. No damages are to be given for the worry about the children, or for the financial strain or stress, or the difficulties of adusting to a new life. Damages are however, recoverable for nervous shock, or, o put it in medical terms, for any recognisable psychiatric illness caused by the breach of duty by the defendant.”
Primary victims
Somebody who is physically endangered by the defendants actions and then suffers psychiatric harm as a result. Also encompasses those who are physically injured by the defendants actions and also suffer psychiatric harm.
(PV) Fear for their own safety (case1).
Dulieu v White [1901] 2 KN 669
“The shock, where it operates through the mind, must be a shock which arises from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself.”
(PV) Fear for their own safety (case2).
Page v smith [1995] 2 ALL ER 736 HL
Following the decision in Page, in cases involving primary victims there is no need to distinguish between physical injury and psychiatric illness. It is sufficient to ask whether the defendant should reasonably have foreseen that the claimant might suffer some personal injury (physical or psychiatric) as a result of the defendant’s negligence. If so, the defendant is under a duty of care to avoid causing personal injury (physical or psychiatric).
Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd [2007] HL
Development of ‘pleural plaques’ as a result of exposure to asbestos through their employer.
Harmless condition = no claim for personal injury
Claimant developed psychiatric illness through fear that exposure to asbestos may cause the development of serious lung disease in the future. Argued the employer should be liable for the psychiatric harm that materialised.
Harm self inflicted by the primary victim (case)
Greatorex v Greatorex [2001] 1 WLR 1970
The court refused to hold the defendant liable for the Claimant’s psychiatric injuries suffered as a result of witnessing the Defendant’s negligent driving. The claim was denied on the grounds that as the defendant’s injuries were self-inflicted it was against public policy to hold him liable.
Secondary victims
Somebody who suffers psychiatric harm as a result of witnessing another person being endangered by the defendant. Someone who is not personally at risk of physical injury who suffers psychiatric harm as a result of witnessing another person being endangered by the defendant.
Restrictive approach due to:
floodgates and the problems of proof.
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
The psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable in a person of reasonable phlegm or fortitude. The harm must occur “through the medium of eye or ear.”
McLoughlin v O’Brien [1981] 1 All ER 809
Extending the scope of liability to “immediate aftermath”.
The Alcock criteria
The House of Lords held that the test for duty of care in relation to a claim for psychiatric harm by a secondary victim dependant on three factors:
1. There must be proximity in time and space to the accident.
2. There must be a close tie of love and affection between the primary victim and the secondary victim.
3. The means by which the shock was caused.
Proximity in time and space cases:
- Taylor v Somerset Health Authority [1993] PLQR 262
- Galli-Atkinson v Seghal [2003] EWCA Civ 697
- Taylor v A Novo 9UK) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194
Close ties of love and affection case:
McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 1
The means by which the shock was caused cases:
- Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] 5 Med LR 170
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA 1792
- Ronayne v Liverpool Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 588
Rescuers and Employees cases
- Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912
- Hale v London Underground [1992] ll BMLR 81
