Psychiatric Harm

Question 1

What is the law now for psychiatric harm?

Answer 1

1. ) Actionable damage
   - recognised psychiatric disorder
2. ) shock
   - sight or sound of a horrifying event that agitates the mind (can be a slow event)
3. ) category of victim
   - primary or secondary

Question 2

Primary victims

Answer 2

• Involved immediately in the event that led to psychiatric harm
• easier to claim
• some form of physical injury must be foreseeable

Question 3

Secondary victims

Answer 3

• Unwilling witness of injury to others
• Harder to claim
• control mechanisms

Question 4

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

Answer 4

Facts: • D was responsible for policing of a football match that become overcrowded where 95 died and more were injured
• Disaster was broadcast on TV
• Claimants were all related to, friends of spectators at the match. Some just saw it on TV
•All Cs alleged that seeing the event caused shock resulting in psychiatric harm
• brought a claim in negligence against D

Judgment: Claim denied

L.P: • A primary victim is someone immediately participant

• a secondary victim is a bystander to the incident
• All claimants were secondary victims
• Secondary victims must prover the Alcock control mechanisms established:

1. ) A close relationship of love and affection with the injured
2. ) proximity to the incident in both time and space
3. ) A means and suddenness of shock

•claims denied to avoid floodgates

Question 5

Page v Smith

Answer 5

Facts: • C was involved in a collision with D
• C suffered no injuries but three hours later felt very tired
• This exhaustion continued (for 20 years prior to this C suffered chronic fatigue syndrome)
• C brought action alleging D’s actions caused his condition to become chronic and he would never take full time employment again

Judgment: Claim allowed.

L.P: • As long as physical injury is reasonably foreseeable, so is psychiatric harm

Question 6

White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

Answer 6

Facts: • 5 police officers on duty at time of The Hillsborough disaster
• Brought action for PTSD suffered due to events witnessed

Judgement: Claim denied

L.P: • Could not Claim as primary victims as they were in no real danger
• Could not Claim as secondary victims as did not satisfy the Alcock criteria
• would have been unfair to allow police to claim but not bystanders

Question 7

Hinz v Berry

Answer 7

Facts: • C’s fiancée was run over by Berry’s car while they were both + children having a picnic
• C sued for nervous shock
•C was previously a woman of fortitude but now has depression

Judgment: Claim partially allowed

L.P: • Claims usually cannot succeed for mere sorrow, but in this case a recognised psychiatric illness was caused

Question 8

Rothwell v Chemical Insulating Co

Answer 8

Facts: • C was exposed to asbestos during employment and developed pleural plaques
•Plaques are evidence of asbestos in the system and therefore they feared developing a serious illness in the future
• C was so worried he developed clinical depression

Judgement: Claim failed

L.P: • Reaction to plaques not foreseeable

• primary victims cannot claim for fearing something in the future

Question 9

McLouglin v O’Brian

Answer 9

Facts: •C was told that her husband and children had been in a serious car accident
• she rushed to hospital to see them
• At hospital she saw the extent of their injuries and learned of the death of one of the children
•she suffered severe mental injury

Judgment: Claim successful

L.P: • Was in reasonable proximity of aftermath

• extended nervous shock cases to all cases where it was reasonably foreseeable