Psychiatric Injury

Question 1

Hinz v Berry (1970)

Answer 1

Must be a recognised psychiatric injury

Question 2

Vernon v Bosley (1997)

Answer 2

Pathological grief disorder is within the scope of recovery

Question 3

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority

Answer 3

Must be induced by shock

Question 4

Bournhill v Young (1843)

Answer 4

The ‘egg shell skull’ rule applies but to degree not susceptibility

Question 5

Grieves v Everard & Sons (2007)

Answer 5

Depression caused by plural plaques not reasonably foreseeable so no claim

Question 6

Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police (1992)

Answer 6

Lord Oliver defines primary victim as: a person mediately or immediately a participant
… secondary victim as: (1) someone with a close tie of love and affection to the primary victim; (2) who witnesses the even with their own sense; (3) in the immediate aftermath of the event; (4) the psychiatric event must be caused by shock

Question 7

Page v Smith (1996)

Answer 7

If physical harm is foreseeable then so is psychiatric damage; the egg-shell skull rule applies

Question 8

Chadwick v British Transport Commission (1967)

Answer 8

// Able to claim as a direct victim for rescuing

Question 9

White v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1999)

Answer 9

Police not able to claim as they are not exposed to danger or reasonably believe themselves to be
Lord Diplock: dissents as unfair and unjust
Lord Steyn: justified due to statutory schemes
Lord Hoffman: unreasonable to be able to claim if families can’t

Question 10

North Gamorgan NHS Trust v Walters (2003)

Answer 10

36 hours watching her son die due to medical negligence was considered an inexorable progression of events

Question 11

MacFarlane v EE Caledonia (1994)

Answer 11

Bystander watching horrific events falls outside the Alcock test

Question 12

W v Essex CC (2001)

Answer 12

Unclear what immediate aftermath means

Question 13

Ferguson v British Gas Trading LTD (2009)

Answer 13

Able to claim under Protection of Harrassment Act 1997 when British Gas sent multiple letters

Question 14

C v D (2006)

Answer 14

Recognised psychiatric illness must occur even in intentional torts

Question 15

Fatal Accidents Act 1976

Answer 15

Sum of £12,980 available to close and listed relatives for bereavement

Question 16

Greatorex v Greatorex (2000)

Answer 16

Father not able to claim against primary victim: policy reasons e.g. right to self determination (Law Com agree) and undesired interference with family life

Question 17

Attia v British Gas PLC (1988)

Answer 17

// Successful claim watching destruction of home, not clear whether will be successful now

Question 18

AB v Tameside (1997)

Answer 18

May be claimable when informing of risk in an unreasonable way

Question 19

Brice v Browb (1984)

Answer 19

Reasonable foreseeability part of test for duty of care but not calculating damages

Question 20

Galli-Atkinson v Seghal (2004)

Answer 20

Able to claim after seeing child in mortuary as horribly disfigured and part of a “string of events”

Question 21

Victorian Railways v Coutlas (1888)

Answer 21

Allowed across crossing and nearly hit by a train, policy concerns about pretend claims so unsuccesful

Question 22

Dulieu v White & Sons (1901)

Answer 22

Drove into pub and pregnant barmaid went into premature labour

Question 23

Habrook v Stokes & Bros (1925)

Answer 23

Allowed to claim after seeing a lorry nearly hit children