Week 3 Flashcards
Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992]
Dulieu v White [1901]
Page v Smith [1996]
Facts:
C involved in car accident with D.
Although there were no physical injuries , C suffered shock which caused the recurrence of his chronic fatigue syndrome.
Held:
Court decided that D was liable for the shock and caused the condition.
Although COA overturned the judge’s opinion as the Psychiatric Illness was not foreseeable, HOL established that if there is physical injury foreseeable then so is Psychiatric Illness.
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999]
Facts:
Hillsborough Stadium Incident.
C were police officers that witnessed the event and suffered from PI.
Held:
Although C met all the criterias to be eligible, their appeal was dismissed as it would be unfair for them to receive compensation whilst the other people that witnessed their friends and family being trampled on to not receive any; It would also open up floodgates for similar events to all police officers, nurses, paramedics, firefighters, etc.
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983]
Facts:
C’s family was involved in an accident.
C went to hospital and found out that her youngest child was killed an the rest of the family was in an injured state.
C suffered deep depression and sued D for the PI.
Held:
C was not part of the accident, however she has witnessed the “Immediate aftermath” of the accident which the Court decided was enough in order for her to succeed in her claim for compensation.
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992]
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994]
Facts:
C was the father of the son in the hospital.
The father was by the son’s bedside for 2 weeks which has caused him psychiatric distress and therefore a PI.
The son ended up dying.
Held:
The D was not liable since the C did not experience a single shocking event and therefore lost the claim.
McCarthy v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1996]
