sem 2 lesson 5 - nervous shock and occupiers liablity Flashcards
nervous shock is about
making a cliam for psychiatric/non physical harm
when is a claim for nervous shock legitimate
for medically diagnosed psychiatric contiion - dont mean grief necessarily
primary victims ar those who
physically injured in event caused by defendant and also psychiatrically injured
but in danger of physical injury but get psychiatrically injured instead of physical
( in immediate sphere of danger - dont always have to get hurt)
got to take victim as you …
find them - once you harm someone you responsible for physical and psychiaytric condequences of what happen however great/unexpected the extent of that becomes
what case do we use to illustrate that a defenfdant must take victim as they find them
PAGE V SMITH 1995
PAIGE V SMITH 1995
Man in car accident appearted immediatley dine after but efect of car accident had big impact on his current condition - made it permanent and longstanding
made claim against the driver which was successful as driver can expect to harm someone physically or pysychiatrically that he drove into
in paige v smith why didt the fact that he didint immediatey break his leg matter
as once accepted physical/psychiatric harm was forseeable the claim was succesful
what is a secondary victim
not in pshycial/not in immediate danger but suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing injury to others
describe the requirements of being a secondary victim
very restrictive
what case do we use for secondary vicitms
boburhill v young
what happened in bourhill v younf and waht do we learn
preggo womn saw crash
difficult to establishh if you could make a cliam if you only saw/expereiced somethig nat a distance that made yusafe in pshyical terms
what are the 3 requirements to be a secondary vicitm
diagnosable psyhicatric injury
saw incident ahppening to other you had sufficiently close relationsjip with e.g family friend or members
experiecnced event in time and space you were sufficiently close to expereince it w UNAIDED SENSE
why is experienceing event w unaided sesnes immportant - i.e. who did it knock out
people watching it happen from tv/radio
which case established the 3 requirements for econdary vicitms
alcock v chieft constable of south yorkshire 1991
what happned in alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire 1991 - and what did it establish
hillsborough disaster
lots of people saifd they exprinced psychiatric harm for ths happening
but some people saw it on tv and radio
this case established who a secondatry victim is
however somoetimes as a seconadry vicitm it can be enough to see the
aftermath
what case shows us as a secondary victim that sometimes it is enough to see the aftermath
mcloughin v o bria
what mcloughin v o brian
mum of 4 kids who got into accident
she foes to hospital 2 hours later and is met w a gory scence
later suffers anxierty and diff medically diagnosed conditinos
what is significant about the mcloughin v o brian case in relation to seconndary victim
you canbe seconodary vicimt iif se walk into / see imediate aftermath (depending on how gory) if it causes diangsoable osych illness
nervous shock may be actionable if suffered as a result of witnessing what
destruction of personal property
what case shows us nervous shock can happen if there is the destruction of perosnal property
attia v british gas 1988
what happened in attia v british gas
engineer installed boiler, in the process house caught on fire
attia came back to burnign house and sufferd psychiatric injurty as a reuslt of seeing house on flmaes
what did court say/agree in terms of property
agree sometimes may be able to claim psycihatic harm arising from witnessing desrtrcution of personal property
but this is harder to apprve
in terms of destruction of eprosnal property it must be
sufficiently trauamtic
in terms of property - what does sufficiently traumatic mean
reasonable to find a link between psychiatric harm and the witnessinf of peroperty damge in a way tat is not unforseeable or disproportionate
it is harder to raie a claim as a
2ndary vicitm
why are we only repsonible for people we connected so closely w
System becomes unmangable if we hold each other into account for ero=yone seeing truamatic thigns
ther is suposed ot be a limt
here we onyl talm bout
common law duties imposed by state that we don’t volunteer for
i.etort law
