Psychiatric Injury Flashcards
What are the policy arguments for restricting claims for negligently inflicted pure psychiatric harm?
‘Floodgates’: a significant increase in the class of claimants who could recover. ‘Fraudulent claims’: perception that psychiatric harm is easier to fake than physical injury. ‘Crushing liability’: imposing damages out of all proportion to the negligent conduct.
What is the definition of psychiatric harm?
Psychiatric harm is a form of psychiatric illness suffered as a result of the perception of traumatic events. It must be either (a) a medically recognised psychiatric illness; or (b) a shock-induced physical condition.
What is the distinction between primary and secondary victims?
Primary victims suffer psychiatric harm from fear for their own safety, while secondary victims suffer psychiatric harm from fear for someone else’s safety.
What is a primary victim?
A primary victim is someone who suffers psychiatric harm due to reasonable fear for their own physical safety and is involved in the traumatic event.
What is a secondary victim?
A secondary victim suffers psychiatric harm due to fear for someone else’s safety, witnessing the traumatic event or its immediate aftermath.
What is the legal status of bystanders and rescuers in psychiatric harm cases?
Bystanders and rescuers are classified as either primary or secondary victims and do not have special status.
What was established in Dulieu v White regarding primary victims?
A primary victim suffers psychiatric harm due to reasonable fear for their own safety while being in the danger zone.
What was the outcome of Cullin v London Fire & Civil Defence Authority?
The claimant firefighter was considered a primary victim as he suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing colleagues in danger during a rescue.
What was the significance of White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police?
The police officers were deemed secondary victims as they were not in the danger zone during the Hillsborough disaster.
What did the Court of Appeal rule in McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd?
The claimant was treated as a secondary victim as he was not in reasonable fear for his physical safety during the oil rig disaster.
What is required for psychiatric harm to be recoverable?
The psychiatric harm must be medically recognised or a shock-induced physical condition.
What must a primary victim establish to prove duty of care?
The primary victim must show that physical harm was reasonably foreseeable due to the defendant’s negligence.
What are the Alcock criteria for secondary victims?
The criteria include: (a) psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable; (b) proximity of relationship between the claimant and ‘the victim’; (c) proximity in time and space.
What was the outcome of Bourhill v Young regarding foreseeability?
The court held no duty of care was owed as it was not foreseeable that someone in the claimant’s position would suffer psychiatric harm.
What is the rebuttable presumption regarding proximity of relationship?
Close ties of love and affection are presumed in parent/child, husband/wife, and engaged couples, but not for grandparent/grandchild or siblings.
What is the ‘thin skull’ rule in psychiatric harm cases?
If psychiatric harm is foreseeable, the claimant can recover damages for all psychiatric harm suffered, even if it exceeds what could have been foreseen.
What did Lord Ackner say about the quality of brotherly love?
The quality of brotherly love is known to differ widely – from Cain and Abel to David and Jonathan.
What can claimants outside of the rebuttable presumption categories try to prove?
They can try and prove through evidence close ties of love and affection with the victim.
What has been the outcome for claimants outside of the rebuttable presumption categories?
To date, no claimant outside of these categories has successfully argued this.
