Unit 3b: Negligence - Pure Psychiatric Harm

Question 1

Pure psychiatric harm definition

Answer 1

Psychiatric harm that is caused without any physical impact or injury to the claimant.

Question 2

Limiting factors for duty of care for PPH

Answer 2

Must be:
- caused by sudden shock; and either
- a medically recognised psychiatric illness; or
- a shock-induced physical condition (such as a miscarriage or heart attack).

Question 3

Primary victims

Answer 3

Page v Smith. Someone who was actually involved in the incident:
- was in the actual area of danger; or
- reasonably believed that they were in danger.
Owed a duty of care in relation to their PPH, provided the risk of physical injury was foreseeable (the risk of psychiatric harm does not need to be foreseeable).

Question 4

Secondary victims

Answer 4

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Someone who is not involved in the incident:
- witnesses injury to someone else; or
- fears for the safety of another person.

Question 5

Secondary victims duty of care control mechanisms

Answer 5

• Foreseeability of psychiatric harm
• Proximity of relationship
• Proximity in time and space
• Proximity of perception.

Question 6

Live television broadcast claims?

Answer 6

Might be sufficient to render the tortfeasor liable to claimants in shock if the ‘impact of the simultaneous television pictures would be as great, if not greater, than the actual sight of the accident’. As in Alcock, example of balloon full of children bursting into flames.

Question 7

Rescuers PPH

Answer 7

A rescuer does not hold a special status different from other accident victims who suffer only PPH. Established in White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999].
So must either:
- be in the actual area of danger, making them a primary victim; or
- be able to meet all of the Alcock control tests applied to secondary victims.

Question 8

Secondary victims egg shell skull

Answer 8

Must get over the first hurdle of the damage being reasonably foreseeable for a normal person in the duty of care steps. But can then rely on the egg shell skull rule in causation to recover damages for all psychiatric injury they suffer, even it is greater in extent than could have been reasonably foreseen.