Psychiatric Injury

Question 1

Bourhill v Young

Answer 1

facts: pregnant woman witnessed a motorcyclist’s accident, leading to her suffering shock and miscarriage.
held: court ruled the motorcyclist didn’t owe a duty of care to bystanders like her, as she wasn’t within the foreseeable range of harm.
principle: motorist owes no duty of care to a bystander who suffers psychological harm unless the harm was reasonably foreseeable.

Question 2

psychiatric injury

Answer 2

someone involved in an accident (primary victim) may suffer physical and mental injuries. policy reasons restrict claims from witnesses (secondary victims).

Question 3

primary victims

Answer 3

primary victims may have a claim in negligence or psychiatric injury depending on the circumstances

Question 4

secondary victims

Answer 4

secondary victims of psychiatric injury have 4 requirements for a claim of psychiatric injury

Question 5

psychiatric injury requirements

Answer 5

claimant must prove
-there was an accident or sudden event where the defendant was negligent and caused the injury
-some form of mental injury
-the claimant passes the Alcock criteria to allow them to claim (just for secondary victims)
-a person of reasonable fortitude would have suffered the same injury in the same circumstances.

Question 6

2 more requirements

Answer 6

1) D caused the injury by negligence- negligence must be established (duty of care, breach of duty, damage caused)
2) mental injury- the injury must be more than mere shock or grief, serious enough that the claimant is abdly affected by it. must be supported by medical evidenceand come from a sudden event eg. acute anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress. claimant must show loss of past/future earnings.

Question 7

Dulieu v White

Answer 7

facts: a pregnant pub worker sued after being startled by a runaway van crashing into the pub.
held: she won compensation because she was directly involved and foreseeable harmed.
principle: Directly involved individuals within foreseeable harm can claim damages for psychological injury.

Question 8

Hambrook v Stokes

Answer 8

facts: A mother witnessed a car accident involving her children, causing her shock.
held: court ruled she could claim compensation as a close bystander affected by the accident.
principle: Close bystanders directly affected by an accident can claim compensation for shock-related injuries.

Question 9

McLoughlin v O’Brien

Answer 9

precedent: must be ‘close ties of love and affection’

Question 10

3) claimant must meet the Alcock Criteria

Answer 10

Page v Smith held: primary victims can claim for physical and mental injuries as a result of D’s negligence, but that there are additional requirements for secondary victims.

Question 11

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

Answer 11

facts: relatives of Hillsborough disaster victims claimed damages for nervous shock.
held: court held that they weren’t directly involved and couldn’t claim compensation.
principle: Only directly involved individuals can claim compensation for nervous shock.

Question 12

Alcock criteria requirements

Answer 12

the claimant must have close ties of lvoe and affection with the victim
C suffered mental injuries as the scene of the incident or in the immediate aftermath
C suffered shock through the unaided senses

Question 13

other categories of claimants

Answer 13

rescuers
bystanders
property owners
‘near missers’
those suffering gradual shock rather than sudden

Question 14

rescuers legal principle

Answer 14

Those who help others in distress and get harmed in the process may be entitled to compensation.

Question 15

bystanders legal principle

Answer 15

Witnesses of harm to close family members can seek compensation for resulting psychological harm.

Question 16

property owners legal principle

Answer 16

Owners are responsible for maintaining safe premises and can be liable for injuries sustained by visitors due to negligence.

Question 17

‘near missers’ legal principle

Answer 17

Individuals narrowly escaping harm due to negligence may not be entitled to compensation unless actual injury occurred.

Question 18

gradual shock sufferers legal principle

Answer 18

Compensation possible if negligence directly causes prolonged shock.

Question 19

Chadwick v British Rail (rescuers)

Answer 19

facts: a police officer rescued a man injured on train tracks and later developed PTSD. held: he was entitled to compensation as a rescuer suffering harm in the course of duty.
principle: Rescuers injured in the line of duty may be entitled to compensation for resulting harm.

Question 20

Hale v London (professional rescuers are unable to claim)

Answer 20

facts: professional rescuers (firefighters), suffered harm during rescue operations. held: court held they were unable to claim compensation due to the nature of their profession and the inherent risks involved.
principle:

Question 21

rescuers additional info

Answer 21

if rescuers dont put themselves at risk they’re classed as secondary victims and need to satisfy the Alcock criteria as per White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

Question 22

McFarlene v EE Caledonia (bystanders)

Answer 22

witnesses to an accident or aftermath of accident who do not help. they cant claim unless they satisfy the Alcock criteria like secondary victims.

Question 23

what are ‘near missers’?

Answer 23

those who were close to the accident and just managed to escape the injury may also claim as primary victims if they can prove D was negligent.

Question 24

Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters (gradual shock)

Answer 24

a 36 hour period was made up of different distressing events and these were uninterrupted events