Psychiatric Injury

Question 1

McLoughlin v O’Brian

Answer 1

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’

Question 2

Page v Smith

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Hinz v Berry

Answer 3

PI must be a recognized illness

Question 4

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

Answer 4

Primary/Secondary victims.

Held that in this circumstances Liability for PI for Primary victims, but not to Secondary victims

Question 5

Bourhill v Young

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Grieves v Everard

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Greatrox v Greatrox

Answer 7

No claim if D is primary victim himself

Question 8

Alcock criteria to establish liability for secondary victims

Answer 8

Nearness, dearness, hearness

Question 9

McFarlane v EE Caledonia

Answer 9

No liability for bystanders except for particularly horrible situations (not here)

Question 10

White v CC of South Yorkshire

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Calvert v William Hill Credit

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Recognised PI

Answer 12

PTSD, reactive depression, chronic fatique, compulsive gambling, pathological grief disorder, severe shock occasioning physical injury (Bourhill v Young)

Question 13

Hunter v British Coal Corp

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Monk v Harrington

Answer 14

Primary victim status but need for reasonable belief in responsibility for the other’s injuries.

Question 15

Primary victims

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Re Organ Retention Group Litigation

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Hatton v Sutherland

Answer 17

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)

Question 18

Barber v Somerset County Council

Answer 18

Won in Hatton v Sutherland, because told his employer was overwhelmed and depressive

Question 19

Hartman v South Essex Mental Hospital

Answer 19

prison officer had to take care of suicide victims’ bodies + no counselling provided although prison was supposed to and said would  won

Question 20

Butchart v Home Office

Answer 20

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