Tort of Negligence: Liability for Psychiatric Injury

Question 1

Why have restrictions for claims of psychiatric injury been restricted to those who witnessed the event?

Answer 1

To prevent false claims and a flood of cases

Question 2

What is a primary victim?

Answer 2

Someone who falls within the horrific event’s zone of physical danger and as a result suffer either physical or psychiatric injury or both

Question 3

What is a secondary victim?

Answer 3

Someone who doesn’t fall within the zone of danger as they are not at risk of physical injury but they witness injury to others and suffer psychiatric injury as a result

Question 4

If C is a primary victim, what case is used to show a duty of care?

Answer 4

PAGE V SMITH

Question 5

What does the case PAGE V SMITH say about establishing a duty of care?

Answer 5

C need prove only that some physical injury was reasonably foreseeable. There is no requirement that psychiatric injury was foreseeable

Question 6

What case is used to demonstrate a breach of duty of care for a primary victim?

Answer 6

BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS

Question 7

What does the case BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS say about breach of duty of care for a primary victim?

Answer 7

D will have breached his duty of care if he failed to reach the standard of care required of the reasonable person in the circumstances

Question 8

What must D’s breach of duty have done for D to be liable?

Answer 8

Caused the physical and/or psychiatric injury

Question 9

What does the case GREGG V SCOTT say about a primary victims injury?

Answer 9

The psychiatric injury need not be a recognised psychiatric condition

Question 10

What does the case WHITE V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE say about the injury of a secondary victim?

Answer 10

C must prove that they’ve suffered from a medically recognised psychiatric condition that is severe and long-term

Question 11

How is a duty of care established for a secondary victim?

Answer 11

It must have been foreseeable that a reasonable person in C’s position would have suffered psychiatric injury due to the horrific event

Question 12

What does the case ALCOCK V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE provide?

Answer 12

Control mechanisms

Question 13

What are the control mechanisms from ALCOCK V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE?

Answer 13

A close tie of love and affection and proximity in time and space

Question 14

What case is used to demonstrate the breach of duty of care for a secondary victim?

Answer 14

BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS

Question 15

What does the case BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS say about the breach of duty for a secondary victim?

Answer 15

D will have breached his duty of care if he failed to reach the standard of care required of the reasonable person in the circumstances

Question 16

What does the case SION V HAMPSTEAD HEALTH AUTHORITY say about a secondary victims injury?

Answer 16

The sudden shock of a horrific event or its immediate aftermath must be the cause of C’s psychiatric injury, C cannot claim for psychiatric injury developed over time

Question 17

What does the case CHADWICK V BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD say if C is a rescuer?

Answer 17

C will be treated in the same way as a primary victim if they are in the zone of danger

Question 18

What does the case WHITE V CC OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE say if C is a rescuer?

Answer 18

C will be treated in the same way as a secondary victim if they are not in the zone of danger and not at risk of physical injury. In order to be successful in their claim C must satisfy all the control mechanisms from ALCOCK

Question 19

What does the case MCFARLANE V EE CALEDONIA say if C is an unrelated bystander?

Answer 19

It would generally not be reasonably foreseeable that a bystander would suffer psychiatric injury