Psychiatric Injury Flashcards
What is a primary victim in the context of psychiatric damage?
A primary victim is a person who either suffers physical injury as a result of another person’s negligence or where it was reasonably foreseeable that they could have been physically injured and as a result suffers a psychiatric injury.
What is a secondary victim in the context of negligence?
A secondary victim is a person who suffers psychiatric injury as a result of another person’s negligence but was not exposed to danger.
What is psychiatric damage also known as?
Psychiatric damage is sometimes referred to as nervous shock.
What must claimants show to succeed in a claim for psychiatric injury?
Claimants must show using medical evidence that they have a recognized psychiatric injury.
Can claimants succeed in a claim for normal grief or distress?
No, claimants will not succeed in a claim for damages for normal grief or distress.
What leading case is associated with psychiatric injury claims following a disaster?
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1992).
In the case of Alcock, how many plaintiffs claimed damages for nervous shock?
Ten plaintiffs claimed damages for nervous shock.
What tragic event prompted the claims in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police?
The Hillsborough disaster.
Was Robert Alcock a primary victim?
No, Robert Alcock was considered a secondary victim.
What circumstances surrounded Brian Harrison’s claim in Alcock?
Brian Harrison was in the West Stand and witnessed the disaster, not knowing his brothers were in danger.
How did Mr. and Mrs. Copoc become secondary victims?
They lost their son and saw the scenes on live television, later identified their son’s body.
Was Brenda Hennessey a secondary victim?
Yes, Brenda Hennessey lost her brother and later learned that he had a ticket in the terrace.
What requirements must be met to classify someone as a secondary victim?
A claimant must witness the event with their own senses or view its immediate aftermath.
What was a key outcome of Alcock regarding witnessing an event for secondary victims?
Claimants must witness the event firsthand and cannot rely on media reports.
What does ‘sufficiently proximate relationship’ refer to in claims for psychiatric injury?
It refers to the close tie of love and affection between the claimant and the primary victim.
What ties are presumed to exist for a sufficiently proximate relationship?
Ties presumed to exist include those between parents and children, spouses, and fiancés.
What was Lord Keith’s comparison regarding relationships in Alcock case?
Lord Keith noted the quality of brotherly love differs widely, demonstrating that it’s not presumed between siblings.
What must a claimant prove about the foreseeability of psychiatric damage?
Claimants must prove it was reasonably foreseeable that they would suffer psychiatric damage.
What type of relationship increases the likelihood of psychiatric damage being deemed foreseeable?
The closer the tie between the plaintiff and the victim, the more likely the psychiatric damage will be considered foreseeable.
Were unconnected bystanders considered secondary victims in Alcock?
Generally, no, unless under exceptional circumstances.
What did Lord Keith indicate about unconnected bystanders and psychiatric injury?
Lord Keith indicated that psychiatric injury to unconnected bystanders usually is not foreseeable.
What did the House of Lords state about exceptionally horrific circumstances?
It hinted that under exceptionally horrific circumstances, unconnected bystanders might be considered secondary victims.
What does the term ‘close tie of love and affection’ imply in psychiatric injury claims?
It implies a deep, emotional connection that is often presumed between certain relationships.
What was one of the reasons courts may limit claims for psychiatric damage?
To avoid a flood of claims and to ensure claims are valid and based on established relationships.
