Psychiatric Injury Flashcards
-plaintiff was a fireman employed by the defendant
- wrongly informed by the defendant that he had succeeded in an internal promotional exam
-After being informed of this, the plaintiff was then told that there was in fact an error, and he was not being promoted.
- Court held: employer owed a duty of care, and there was a breach, but no recognized psychiatric illness had been suffered by the plaintiff
Larkin v Dublin City Council [2007] IEHC 416
- infants had died while the mother was giving birth in hospital
- plaintiff sued for damages arising out of the retention of organs of their two infants
- Court dismissed: no recognized psychiatric illness - only grief and upset
O’Connor v Lenihan [2005] IEHC 176
- Where hospital negligence was alleged when the plaintiff was diagnosed as being MRSA positive
- The plaintiff suffered high levels of stress and anxiety, but no recognized psychiatric illness
Hegarty v Mercy University Hospital Cork [2011] IEHC 435
-plaintiff had given birth in the defendant hospital
- owever, when her baby was removed in order to afford her some rest, the hospital returned a different baby to her.
- plaintiff formed an attachment to this baby over nine days. It was claimed that the plaintiff’s stress was augmented by the defendant’s refusal to provide the plaintiff with documentation that would have reassured her about her own child until a year after the event.
- awarded a mother £35,000 damages for suffering serious agitation and stress
- outlier case - does not follow the regular rules
Broomfield v The Midland Health Board UK
- The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant. He was exposed to a risk of fatal injury due to breathing asbestos in his workplace over a long period (basement of Leinster House).
- As a result, he suffered from chronic reactive anxiety neurosis.
- High Court held the defendant guilty of ‘negligence of the grossest kind’, and awarded the plaintiff £45,000 plus £15,000 as aggravated damages
- On appeal to the Supreme Court, the defendants only appealed on quantum, not liability as that had been conceded - only amount of money further discussed
IE - Swaine v Commissioner for Public Works [2003] 1 IR 521 (SC)
- Taken at the same time, for the same kind of negligence, and against the same employer as Swaine
- asbestos risk - higher risk of developing a disease - being worried about getting a disease does not equal to nervous shock
- High level of asbestos - scared to develop a disease later in life - not a psychiatric injury- disease did not manifest
- needs to be a manifestation of something to have a nervous shock
- Supreme Court via policy consideretions overturned jury call (which awarded plaintiff 48k) as they said no compensation was owed
- ‘uncharted territory’ for the courts because it was not a nervous shock case; rather it was a psychiatric illness engendered by ‘a combination of anger and anxiety which was the result of the plaintiff’s having been informed of his exposure to the risk of contracting mesothelioma because of his employers’ negligence.’
- determining whether the absence of physical injury was fatal to the plaintiff’s claim
IE - Fletcher v Commissioners of Public Works [2003] 1 IR 465
- the claimants were negligently exposed to asbestos in their workplace, and faced the risk of developing asbestos-related diseases in the future
- the claimants had in fact developed something called pleural plaques (physical sign of asbestos)
- claimant worried so much about developing an illness because of the risk, he suffered from depression, a recognized psychiatric illness
- I think it would be an unwarranted extension of the principle in Page v Smith to apply it to psychiatric illness caused by apprehension of the possibility of an unfavourable event which had not actually happened
- was not in zone of physical danger - did not contract the disease, no shocking event- not an immediate consequence
UK - Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd [2007] UKHL 39
- Plaintiff´s husband and children got into serious crash
- The plaintiff learned of the accident when on a visit to another town with her brother and mother. Her brother received a phone message from his sister in law as well as a visit from the Gardai.
- Husband and sons in very bad conditions when she visited them in different hospitals.
- In the months following the accident, the plaintiff’s husband and two sons improved, but her other son Paul lost his life.
- The women got very distressed - nervous shock - depression- consistent with PTSD
- held that the plaintiffs’ condition was caused by the accident and its aftermath, and not grief
- giving judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of £35,000 for general damages to date and £40,000 for the future
- Proximity and reasonable foreseeability, no public consideration, causation, recognised psychiatric injury
Mullally v Bus Eireann [1992] ILRM 722
- The plaintiff was a married woman, and mother to two daughters and a son
- niece rang the plaintiff to say that her husband and daughters had been seriously injured in a car accident
- The plaintiff had not been present at the crash, but had learnt of it by a telephone call.
- plaintiff immediately went into shock, became upset and started vomiting. The pl was taken to the hospital where her family were, and each of them were in a dreadful condition.
- High Court awarded damages of £35,000 for nervous shock to date, and £40,000 for the future.
- On appeal, the defendant accepted that the plaintiff was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, but contended that it was not a psychiatric illness of the kind which gave rise to damages for nervous shock.
- caused by the strain of caring for her family rather than shock attributable to the accident
- Supreme Court reduced level of damages and created a test
Kelly v Henessy [1995] 2 IR 253 - test still used today
- Claimant suffered psych harm after in the immediate aftermath of a serious car accident - husband dying in hospital, daughter was killed and 3 other children seriously injured - found out two hours after when she went to hospital
- suffered: nervous shock, organic depression and a change of personality
- allowed based on immediate aftermath- yet disagreed if they should use reasonable foreseeability (current test in IE) or reference to independent policy factors (almost identical to IE):
- the closeness of the relationship between the claimant and the victims,
- the proximity of the claimant to the accident,
- and whether the shock was induced by what the claimant saw or experienced as opposed to what she was told after the event.
- So 3 criteria were established:
- Relationship with the immediate victim (close tie of love and affection) - still a bit unclear- eg. friends?
- Proximity in time and space
- How the shock is caused
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410
96 Liverpool football fans were killed when there was severe overcrowding at a match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest
- claimants were relatives or friends - were not directly there -secondary victims
- rejected the claims- lack of proximity between the claimants and the police, and so no duty of care arose that could ground a claim in negligence
- Alock control mechanisms
- The class of persons whose claim should be recognized (defined by their relationship to the victim).
- The closeness of the claimant – both physically and temporarily – to the accident.
- The necessity of, and the means by which, the shock is caused.
Alcock v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310
application of primary victims
- car crash - psychical injury resurfaced
- despite no physical injury she was awarded damaged - criticized a lot in literature
Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155
