Unit 2 the law of tort

Question 1

What are the 3 main cases used in establishing a duty of care

Answer 1

-Donahue vs Stevenson 1932
- Caparo vs Dickman 1990
- Robinson vs Chief Police constable of West Yorkshire 2018

Question 2

Explain the case of Donahue vs Stevenson 1932 and what principle it established

Answer 2

Mrs. Donahue found a dead snail in her drink at a restaurant and and became ill. She sued.
Case established the neighbor principle

Question 3

what is meant by the neighbor principle

Answer 3

A duty of care is owed to anyone who could reasonably foreseeably be affected by the defendants actions.

Question 4

Explain each stage of the 3 stage Caparo test

Answer 4

-Was the damage caused reasonably foreseeable? Could the defendant have predicted the harm may occur

• Was their sufficient proximity between parties? In the situation were the parties close in terms of time, space or knew each other?
• Is it fair or just to impose a duty of care?
  Will imposing a duty of care open the floodgates to more cases

Question 5

Give one case example for ‘reasonably foreseeable harm or damage’

Answer 5

Kent v Griffiths 2000- held that it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the ambulances punctuality that the defendant may suffer worse injury

Question 6

Give one case example of sufficient proximity

Answer 6

Kent v Griffiths 2000- Ambulances owe a duty of care to the wider public

Question 7

Explain the case of Robinson vs chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police 1990

Answer 7

76 year old woman was injured by two police officers in pursuit. After further appeal to the supreme court it was ruled that previous precedent should be used before applying the Caparo test as it was previously.

Question 8

Give a case example of doctor to patient duty of care

Answer 8

Montgomery vs Lanarkshire 2015

Question 9

Give a case example of lawyer to client duty of care

Answer 9

Arthur JS Hall vs Simons 2000

Question 10

Give a case example of driver to passenger duty of care

Answer 10

Nettleship vs Weston 1971

Question 11

Give a case example of manufacturer to consumer

Answer 11

Donahue vs Stevenson 1932

Question 12

What happens if no previous precedent on the case is found?

Answer 12

The court looks for analogous cases

Question 13

Give a case example where an analogous case was used

Answer 13

Darnley vs NHS Trust 2018- man with head injury was given the wrong waiting time worsening his condition. Court looked to Barnett vs Chelsea and Kensington Hospital 1969 and later established that all hospital staff owe a duty of care to patients

Question 14

Explain what the case of Caparo vs Dickman 1990 held

Answer 14

insufficient proximity between parties. A duty of care should unfold incrementally rather than assuming it applies in all situations.

Question 16

Explain the case of Dullieu vs White 1901 and what it held

Answer 16

Claimant who was pregnant suffered shock and feared for her safety causing her to give birth prematurely and led to the child having issues. Held that a claim for negligence can arise from nervous shock caused by reasonable fear.

Question 17

Explain the case of Chadwick vs British railways Board 1967 and what it held

Answer 17

After a train crash that killed 90, Chadwick rushed and helped at the scene. After the incident he developed anxiety neurosis. It was held that the defendant was liable as it was reasonably fore

Question 18

What constitutes a primary victim?

Answer 18

Primary victims are those who are involved ‘mediately or immediately as a participant’ Per Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire.

Question 19

What was the case Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire about?

Answer 19

This case stemmed from the Hillsborough football stadium disaster in 1989, where 95 people were killed and over 400 injured due to a crowd control failure by South Yorkshire Police.

Question 20

What was the outcome of Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire?

Answer 20

The appeals were dismissed. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims.

Question 21

What are secondary victims?

Answer 21

Secondary victims are passive witnesses.

Question 22

What restriction was placed on primary victims?

Answer 22

This was later restricted to those in the zone of physical danger.

Question 23

What was the case White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire about?

Answer 23

This case involved police officers on duty during the Hillsborough disaster who sought compensation for psychiatric injuries.

Question 24

What was the outcome of White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire?

Answer 24

The appeal was allowed, and the police officers couldn’t claim for psychiatric injuries.

Question 25

What must rescuers demonstrate to be considered primary victims?

Answer 25

Rescuers need to be in physical danger to be primary victims.

Question 26

What was the case McFarlane v EE Caledonia about?

Answer 26

The claimant worked on the Piper Alpha rig but was on a nearby vessel during the fire and claimed psychiatric injury.

Question 27

What was the outcome of McFarlane v EE Caledonia?

Answer 27

The appeal was allowed. No duty of care was owed as the claimant wasn't in physical danger.

Question 28

What is required for primary victims regarding foreseeable harm?

Answer 28

Primary victims only need to show that physical harm was foreseeable.

Question 29

What was the case Page v Smith about?

Answer 29

The claimant, recovering from ME, was in a minor car accident that triggered his condition, leading to a £162,000 damages award.

Question 30

What was the outcome of Page v Smith?

Answer 30

As long as some injury was foreseeable, it didn't matter if it was physical or psychiatric.

Question 31

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 31

The defendant must take the victim as they are, even if the injury wouldn't have happened to an ordinary person.

Question 32

What was the case Greatorex v Greatore about?

Answer 32

John crashed his father's car after drinking, injuring himself, and his father later developed PTSD.

Question 33

What was the outcome of Greatorex v Greatore?

Answer 33

The claim failed. A primary victim doesn't owe a duty of care to a third party for self-inflicted harm.

Question 34

Police)

Question 35

• The law has since developed to allow more wide ranging circumstances but is still quite

Question 36

restricted. A distinction is drawn between primary and secondary victims. (Alcock)

Question 37

Main Body Two

Question 38

Explain what constitutes a primary victim who suffered psychiatric injury with case law.

Question 39

Keep the case summaries to no more than one/two sentences

Question 40

• Primary victims are those who are involved 'mediately or immediately as a participant' Per

Question 41

Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire.

Question 42

• Explain the facts of Alcock here - you do not need to do it more than once.

Question 43

• This was later restricted to those in the zone of physical danger. (White v Chief Constable

Question 44

of South Yorkshire Police)

Question 45

• An objective approach is taken as to whether the claimant is in the zone of physical danger.

Question 46

(Mcfarlane v E.E. Caledonia)

Question 47

• Primary victims only need to show that physical harm was foreseeable. There's no need to

Question 48

prove psychiatric injury was foreseeable as long as personal injury was. (Page v Smith)

Question 49

• A primary victim doesn't owe a duty of care to a secondary victim for self-inflicted harm.

Question 50

(Greatorex v Greatorex)

Question 51

Main body three

Question 52

Explain what constitutes a secondary victim who suffered psychiatric injury with case law.

Question 53

Keep the case summaries to no more than one/two sentences

Question 54

Secondary victims are those not within the physical zone of danger but witnesses of horrific

Question 55

events. Iney must demonstrate a recognised psychiatric condition like a primary vicum

Question 56

Secondary victims must demonstrate the four Alcock criteria are present in order to establish

Question 57

A close tie of love and altection

Question 58

Witness the event with their own unaided senses

Question 59

Proximity to the event itself or its immediate aftermath

Question 60

4. Psychiatric injury must be a result of a shocking event.

Question 61

Evaluate criteria with case law

Question 62

1. Close tie of love and affection

Question 63

• This will be presumed in parent and child and between spouses but must be proved

Question 64

in oter relatonsnips. In particular siblings are not normally considered to nave a

Question 65

close tie of love and affection. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

Question 66

[1992]

Question 67

2. Witness the event with own unaided senses

Question 68

• Seeing the events on television is not sufficient.

Question 69

3. Proximity to the event itself or its immediate aftermath

Question 70

• So either they should witness the event or the immediate aftermath

Question 71

• Before Alcock

Answer 71

The House of Lords extended the class of persons who would be

Question 72

considered proximate to the event to those who come within the immediate

Question 73

aftermath of the event. (McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983])

Question 74

• In Alcock

Answer 74

the relatives that had visited the makeshift mortuary to identify loved ones

Question 75

were held not to come within the immediate aftermath of the event. Further relevant

Question 76

case law in Taylorson v Shieldness Produce Ltd [1994].

Question 77

• What constitutes immediate aftermath is decided on the particular facts of the case

Question 78

(Wv Essex County Council (2000))

Question 79

4. Psychiatric injury must be caused by a shocking event.

Question 80

• Lord Ackner in Alcock stated:

Question 81

"Shock". in the context of this cause of action. involves the sudden appreciation bv

Question 82

sight or sound of a horrifying event

Answer 82

which violently agitates the mind. It has yet to

Question 83

include osychiatric illness caused by the accumulation over a period of time of more.

Question 84

gradual assaults on the nervous system."

Question 85

• This excludes those who suffer psychiatric injury as a result of the long term process of

Question 86

providing care for a loved one who has suffered severe injuries due to the defendant's

Question 87

negligence. (Sion v Hampstead Health Authority (1994))

Question 88

What is psychiatric injury?

Answer 88

Injury to the mind rather than to the body. Psychiatric injury is sometimes referred to as nervous shock. It can occur to primary or secondary victims of incidents.

Question 89

What is the law's approach to psychiatric injury claims?

Answer 89

The law adopts a restrictive approach in awarding damages for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury.

Question 90

What is the Caparo test?

Answer 90

The Caparo test is used for imposing a duty of care, alongside several obstacles that must be satisfied for psychiatric injury claims.

Question 91

What was the significance of Dulieu v White?

Answer 91

Initially limited psychiatric injury claims to those who feared for their own safety.

Question 92

What did Hambrook v Stokes Bros establish?

Answer 92

Expanded the narrow requirements of Dulieu to cover family members and friends of victims.

Question 93

What did Chadwick v British Railways Board determine?

Answer 93

Widened the scope to include bystanders who responded to an incident.

Question 94

What was the outcome of White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire?

Answer 94

Rescuers must prove they were in the zone of danger and are not given favorable treatment.

Question 95

What constitutes an actual psychiatric injury?

Answer 95

Must be a recognized psychiatric condition; emotions of grief or sorrow, and feelings of fear, panic, or terror are insufficient.

Question 96

What defines a primary victim?

Answer 96

Primary victims are those involved 'mediately or immediately as a participant' in an incident.

Question 97

What did White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police restrict?

Answer 97

Restricted primary victims to those in the zone of physical danger.

Question 98

What is the significance of Mcfarlane v E.E. Caledonia?

Answer 98

An objective approach is taken to determine if the claimant is in the zone of physical danger.

Question 99

What must primary victims show regarding physical harm?

Answer 99

They only need to show that physical harm was foreseeable; no need to prove psychiatric injury foreseeability.

Question 100

What is the duty of care regarding secondary victims?

Answer 100

A primary victim does not owe a duty of care to a secondary victim for self-inflicted harm.

Question 101

Who are secondary victims?

Answer 101

Those not within the physical zone of danger but witnesses of horrific events.

Question 102

What must secondary victims demonstrate?

Answer 102

They must demonstrate a recognized psychiatric condition and satisfy the four Alcock criteria.

Question 103

What is the first Alcock criterion?

Answer 103

A close tie of love and affection, presumed in parent-child and spousal relationships.

Question 104

What is the second Alcock criterion?

Answer 104

Witness the event with their own unaided senses; seeing events on television is not sufficient.

Question 105

What is the third Alcock criterion?

Answer 105

Proximity to the event itself or its immediate aftermath.

Question 106

What did McLoughlin v O'Brian establish?

Answer 106

Extended the class of persons considered proximate to those within the immediate aftermath of the event.

Question 107

What was the ruling in Alcock regarding relatives visiting a mortuary?

Answer 107

Relatives visiting the makeshift mortuary to identify loved ones were not considered within the immediate aftermath.

Question 108

What is the fourth Alcock criterion?

Answer 108

Psychiatric injury must be a result of a shocking event.

Question 109

What did Lord Ackner state about 'shock'?

Answer 109

'Shock' involves the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind.

Question 110

What does Sion v Hampstead Health Authority exclude?

Answer 110

Excludes those who suffer psychiatric injury from long-term care processes.

Question 111

What is the exception regarding work-related stress?

Answer 111

Employers have a duty not to cause psychiatric injury to employees, but only where the injury is foreseeable.