psychological harm Flashcards
(1)
we know that A can owe a duty of care towards B to prevent B suffering as a result of unintentional but careless conduct.
BUT in order to succeed, the mental harm must amount to a recognised psychiatric disorder. this cannot be a fright as seen in Simpson v Imperial chemical industries.
which case showed that it does not matter if the Psychiatric injury is not foreseeable and showed what a primary victim was.
The case of Page v Smith showed that even though the pursuer suffered no physical harm, they were still the primary victim as they were in the area of potential physical harm of the accident. it was irrelevant that the psychiatric disorder was not reasonably foreseeable.
therefore there is always a duty to protect the pursuer when they are a primary victim.
case which shows that it seems that to be a primary victim you need to be in physical danger.
Frost v chief constable of Yorkshire police. You need to be in the physical danger zone for the defender to owe you a duty of care.
what could be an exception of being in the physical danger zone to claim for damages to psycheatric injury? case?
Attia v British Gas plc
saw her house burn down.
Leading case for witnessing an accident happen?
Bourhill v Young
motorcyclist driving too fast. crashed into car. woman saw the remains of blood when she was on a tram.
she was not the primary victim as she was not in the area of potential harm. only owes a duty of care to them when it can be reasonably expected to harm them.
Therefore there is a general rule that there is no duty of care to prevent secondary victims from suffering mental harm.
which case showed the exception to a secondary victim being able to claim for damages?
this was shown in the case of McLoughlin v O’Brian where the mother heard of the accident and went strait to the hospital where she saw her injured family. She was a secondary victim but could still claim in damages.
the factors which gave her proximity were that she had witnessed the aftermath of the incident.
and that she was a close family member of the victims
this showed that 2 factors needed to be present to imply a duty of care towards the defender for secondary victims.
firstly there needs to be the reasonable foreseeability towards the pursuer and secondly there needs to be a close degree of proximity.
which case showed the (television factor) witnessing of all their loved ones die?
Alcock v Chief Constable of south Yorkshire police
Showed that reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric injury was not sufficient and two extra factors had to exist.
pursuer had to have seen the event or its aftermath and the pursuer needs to have seen the accident.
Moreover there had to be a tie of love and affection.
viewing it on the tv was not enough as policy of the tv to not show that no specific person who was injured could be identified.
what are the three things which now must be satisfied for there to be a duty of care to prevent mental harm FOR SECONDARY VICTIMS? (Alcock criteria)
there must be a tie of love and affection between primary and secondary victim.
there must be present at the incident or at the immediate aftermath of the incident.
the psychiatric disorder needs to have been caused by the direct perception of the incident and can not be informed of the incident.
which case shows that you cannot claim for watching your friend die?
Robertson v Fourth Road Bridge Joint Board
