psychiatric harm Flashcards
Define psychiatric harm.
form of psychiatric illness that the claimant has suffered as a result of the perception of traumatic events.
- must be either medically recognised or shock induced physical condition
Which case established primary and secondary victims?
Alcock v chief constable of South Yorkshire police- football stadium crush case.
define primary victims.
someone who suffers psychiatric harm as a result of reasonable fear for their own physical safety (objective test).
They are involved in the traumatic event and are therefore in the area of danger (the danger zone).
define secondary victims.
A secondary victim suffers psychiatric harm due to fear for someone else’s safety, normally a close relative.
How are primary victims determined that they were owed a duty of care?
defendant must reasonably have foreseen that the claimant might suffer physical injury as a result of their negligence.
OBJECTIVE TEST
What are the duty of care requirements for a claim for primary victims?
- psychiatric harm must be medically recognised
- psychiatric and physical injury must be material
- physical harm must be foreseeable
- proximity and fair, just & reasonable
How does foreseeability work for proving a duty of care was owed to primary victims?
only physical injury needs to be foreseeable not psychiatric injury in order to establish a duty of care.
What is the Alcock criteria for secondary victims to bring a claim?
- psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable in an ordinary person
- proximity of relationship between claimant & ‘the victim’
- proximity in time and space
- injury must be result of sudden shock
Who falls within the ‘assumption of responsibility’ cases?
There are psychiatric harm cases where the claimant cannot be classified as an actual, primary or secondary
Where does duty of care stand within ‘assumption of responsibility’ cases?
A defendant will owe a claimant a duty of care not to cause psychiatric harm where the defendant has ‘assumed responsibility’ to ensure that the claimant avoids reasonably foreseeable psychiatric harm.
- example= employer/employee
To establish breach in occupational stress claims, psychiatric harm to the claimant must be reasonably foreseeable to the employer. What factors do the court take into account to assess whether psychiatric harm was reasonably foreseeable?
The nature and extent of the work being undertaken; signs of stress from the claimant; and the size and scope of the business and availability of resources.
