Tort - Nervous Shock

Question 0

McLoughlin v O’Brian

Answer 0

Key case
Test of liability was reasonable foreseeability
Even if not at scene.

Lord Wilberforce highhlighted the class of people to be protected were limited to aftermath or accident if could see/hear with own senses.

Resolved by Alcock.

Question 1

Brice v Brown

Answer 1

Nervous shock does not cover pure grief and sorrow

Question 2

Alcock

Answer 2

Hillsborough - key case

Secondary victims classified
Could claim nervous shock if caused psychiatric illness as a result of apprehending the infliction of physical injury or risk to the primary victim if proved
- close relationship of love and affection with primary victim (still possible if of particular sensitivity if prove a person of normal fortitude would have suffered) nb parent, child, spouse all automatic.
- proximity in time and place
- that seeing or hearing with own senses caused the nervous shock.

Question 3

Page v Smith

Answer 3

If as a primary victim, physical injury is proved reasonably foreseeable then nervous shock/psychiatric harm is recoverable too. Even if have some predisposition to that illness (note difference to secondary victims).

Question 4

White

Answer 4

No extra duty of care owed to rescuers or employees.

Must prove liability under usual rules of negligence.

Question 5

McFarlane

Answer 5

No extra duty of care owed to bystanders.

Must prove liability under usual rules of negligence.

Question 6

Attia

Answer 6

Unlikely to be followed but unresolved (prior to Alcock)

Nervous shock as a result of witnessing damage to property may be possible.

Question 7

Dooley

Answer 7

Involuntary participants are classified as primary victims despite not fitting definition.