Psychiatric Injury Flashcards
Dulieu v White
Old Case - ‘real and immediate fear of injury to herself’ 2KB 669
McLoughlin v O’Brian
‘Nervous shock’ recovery of damages - Lord Bridge stated that there must be a ‘positive psychiatric illness’ such as clinical depression, PTSD and personality changes
White and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
PVs who have been either both psychiatrically and physically or just psychiatrically (with there having been a risk of physical injury) can recover damages for psychiatric harm – SVs who merely witness the event but suffer psychiatric harm can recover but only in very limited circmstances
Page v Smith
followed in Simmons v British Steel
Where it is reasonably foreseeable that a D’s behaviour would expose the C to a risk of physical injury, there was a DOC with regard to any injury the claimant suffered - it was not necessary that psychiatric injury itself was foreseeable
White and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (secondary)
Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire (test) (Wilberforce)
The test for SVs was laid down in A and confirmed in W -
- The psychiatric injury must have been reasonably foreseeable
- Nature and cause of psy injury
- Class of person i.e. relationship to PVs
- Proximity - time and place
McFarlane v Wilkinson
In order to recover for psychiatric injury there must be fear for one’s own safety and there must be reason for these fears - merely witnessing is not enough
Bournhill v Young
Brice v Brown
Foreseeability test of injury by shock is whether a person of reasonable fortitude would be likely to suffer psychiatric harm - if yes then the particularly vulnerable person can recover per Brice
Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire
O’Brian (Wilberforce)
(Class of people)
Relatives are most likely to succeed as SVs - usually brothers, brothers-in-law and grandparents will not succeed - mere proof of the type of relationship is insufficient - must be ‘factually close’ - can be presumed in some cases e.g. parent/child but must be proved in most
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority
The psy injury to SVs must be sudden and it must not be as a result of something like bereavement or stress, which are post-event - also, here, watching your son die is not sudden and he could not claim
North Glamorgan Trust v Walters
A series of events, each of which have an immediate impact, can constitute one ‘horrifying event’ and allow a SV’s claim
Attia v British Gas
Damage to property can be a ‘horrifying event’ from which psychiatric injury can stem for SVs
Vernon v Bosley (No.1)
Even though injury may have been caused by bereavement, and therefore not recoverable, providing the C can show that sudden shock caused some part of the injury then the claim will not be defeated
Chadwick v British Railway Boards
Where recovery was allowed for rescuers - in White, where they restricted rescuers to SV status, they said that in the cases where rescuers had succeeded, they were in fact PVs, which suggests that this area was chosen instead to be widened
White and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (employer)
French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police
Employer/employee relationship is subject to the same normal rules of negligence and there is therefore no DOC owed to employees regarding psychiatric damage caused by employers
Hunter v British Coal
Unwitting agents may have a claim if they satisfy the requirements of proximity in space and time -
