Psychiatric Harm

Question 1

An actual victim

Answer 1

A person who has suffered physical harm only OR physical harm and a psychiatric harm.

Question 2

A primary victim

Answer 2

Suffers psychiatric harm as a result of reasonable fear for their own physical safety. They were within the foreseeable range of physical injury, but only suffered psychiatric harm. (Dulieu v White) (Page v Smith)

Question 3

A secondary victim

Answer 3

Suffers psychiatric harm due to fear for someone else’s safety. They witnessed the event but were not within the foreseeable range of physical injury. (McLoughlin v O’Brian) (Alcock).

Question 4

First step when establishing if suffered psychiatric harm

Answer 4

Determining whether it is recognised in law

Question 5

Clinical depression recognised in law

Answer 5

Hinz v Berry

Question 6

Liability will not arise for fear, distress or mental grief caused by negligence as the courts are likely to consider this to be only normal human emotion following an unpleasant experience

Answer 6

(Reilly v Merseyside )

Question 7

Psychiatric harm in law if form person is suffering it in goes beyond normal human emotion

Answer 7

(Vernon v Bosley)

Question 8

Cannot be primary victim if..

Answer 8

Was not within foreseeable range of physical injury

Question 9

Secondary victim: the Alcock criteria

Answer 9

1) psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable
2) proximity of relationship between claimant and victim
3) proximity in time and space
4) injury must be result of sudden shock

Question 10

1. Psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable

Answer 10

In a person of normal fortitude (Bourhill v Young- not foreseeable that someone in claimant’s position (seeing aftermath of motorcycle crash) would suffer psychiatric harm (miscarry))

Question 11

Thin skull rule apply?

Answer 11

Yes, once established that person of normal fortitude would have suffered psychiatric illness, the full extent is compensated even if exacerbated by predisposition to mental illness/disorder.

Question 12

2. Proximity of relationship

Answer 12

Close ties of love and affection

Question 13

When are close ties of love and affection rebuttably presumed?

Answer 13

Parents, children, spouses, engaged couples

Not grandparent, grandchild or between siblings, uncles, aunts

Question 14

3. Proximity in time or space

Answer 14

Generally- must have witnessed accident themselves or its immediate aftermath

Question 15

Any duty owed to secondary victim who is merely told about a shocking event (including via newspaper or tv)?

Answer 15

No- does not satisfy proximity in time or space requirement of Alcock

Question 16

4. The injury must be the result of a sudden shock

Answer 16

In addition to witnessing events through their own unaided senses, the psychiatric illness must have been caused by a sudden and horrifying event

Question 17

A sudden shock- cases

Answer 17

Sion v Hampstead Heath Authority: the claimant watching his child die over 2 weeks was not sufficiently sudden
Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust- a sequence of events over a 36 hour period (baby dying) could constitute single, sudden event.

Question 18

In addition to Alcock criteria, what overarching consideration will apply

Answer 18

Court will take into account whether it is fair, just and reasonably for duty to be imposed. (policy concerns)