Psychiatric Injury Flashcards
McLoughlin v O’Brian
C’s daughter killed and her husband and 2 children injured in a car accident. She arrived at hospital 2h30 later. Held: reactive depression = recognized PI.
Extended requirement of proximity of time and space.
‘Customary Phlegm’
Page v Smith
collision b/w cars, no physical injury to C but within hours of coming home felt obviously exhausted, claimed accident caused the return of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from which he suffered in mild form for past 20 years. Unlikely he’d be able to ever work again.
Held: chronique fatigue = recognised P.I
- egg shell rule applicable
Hinz v Berry
PI must be a recognized illness
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
Primary/Secondary victims.
Held that in this circumstances Liability for PI for Primary victims, but not to Secondary victims
Bourhill v Young
Fact: woman miscarriage bcs of shocking scene of blood on the road (previous accident)
Held: where physical injury is suffered by psychiatric means, no need to show recognised P.I.
Grieves v Everard
worker dealing with asbestos and developed lung cancers. Man exposed to asbestos earlier in his life, goes to doctor and is told he might be getting cancer, but not entirely sure. He is so traumatised he gets chronically depressed. Sues his former employer for P;I.
Held: PI caused by apprehension of possibility of an event = NOT recognised PI
Greatrox v Greatrox
No claim if D is primary victim himself
Alcock criteria to establish liability for secondary victims
Nearness, dearness, hearness
McFarlane v EE Caledonia
No liability for bystanders except for particularly horrible situations (not here)
White v CC of South Yorkshire
No claim for rescuers unless they were/though they were in physical danger at some point during rescuing efforts
+ no special protection for employees as secondary victims
Calvert v William Hill Credit
C was a compulsive gambler who made use of the D’s bookmaker’s telephone betting service. Realising he had a problem, sought to enter into a “self-exclusion” arrangement – service offered by Ds to problem gamblers, whereby they would accept the gambler’s instructions to close the telephone account, and undertake to refuse telephone bets for 6 months; Through carelessness on their part, however, this arrangement was never implemented. C was allowed to continue palcing telephone bets, and lost 1,8 million pounds in various “betting frenzies”.
Held: compulsive, pathological gambling = recognized PI
Recognised PI
PTSD, reactive depression, chronic fatique, compulsive gambling, pathological grief disorder, severe shock occasioning physical injury (Bourhill v Young)
Hunter v British Coal Corp
PROXIMITY REQUIREMENT IN PRIMARY VICTIMS
C was driving along a track when he became aware of a water hydrant protruding into the track; track was too small and c stroke the hydrant causing water to flow from it. He went out to try and stop the flow with help form 3P. C went to look for water hosehe could use to channel the flow and when he was 30m away the hydrant burst and 3P was killed in the explosion. C only learnt about it otw back to the scene. Felt responsible and developed PI.
Held: no DOC owed to C bcs PI wasn’t triggered by accident as C didn’t witness it, or aftermath + C’s reaction not foreseeable for breach of D’s duty of care.
Monk v Harrington
Primary victim status but need for reasonable belief in responsibility for the other’s injuries.
Primary victims
Physical danger (Page v Smith) Reasonable believe cause death/injury of another (Hunter v British Coal, Monk v Harrington), Rescuers (not generally, unless in the zone of danger (regular Page v Smith) White v CC of South Yorkshire
Re Organ Retention Group Litigation
Facts: parents of children who died agreed to doc’s propositions to carry post mortem experience on children ody. BUT didn’t know docs also gave the children’s organs (which they did not consent to). Nothing on form signed mentioned it. When found out, suffered terrible psychiatric reactions (already more fragile by death of children).
Extra factors: parents also client sof docs: special relationship
Held: didn’t witness anything no negligence, not secondary victims bcs no duty of care to the dead children form the docs (thus no primary victims).
BUT: court said doctors had duty to parents to expose all the relevant info in asking for their consent primary victims
Hatton v Sutherland
Employees - a special group in PI.
where recognised PI is reasonably foreseeable product of specific reaches of a contractual duty of care towards a victim whose identity is known in advance.
• Duty of care governed by requirement of reasonable foreseeability
• “threshold question is whether this kind of harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable” (not in a person of ‘ordinary fortitude’)
• Relevant factors: nature/extent of work, signs from employment himself, knowledge of particular vulnerability (tell the employer)
Barber v Somerset County Council
Won in Hatton v Sutherland, because told his employer was overwhelmed and depressive
Hartman v South Essex Mental Hospital
prison officer had to take care of suicide victims’ bodies + no counselling provided although prison was supposed to and said would won
Butchart v Home Office
Facts: C was placed in a cell with suicide risk prisoner, and was himself weak. Other commits suicide in front of C. C claims prison owes him a DOC.
Held: DOC bcs special relationship prison/prisoner, when reasonably foreseeable
