Psychiatric harm

  • Created by: Brodie
  • Created on: 16-04-15 18:47
View mindmap
  • Duty of care: psychiatric harm
    • Physical injury - can claim for emotional/mental consequences
      • Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire - 30 minutes was too short
      • Roberts v Lestrange - 4 days was long enough
    • Pure psychiatric harm
      • McLoughlin v O'Brian - must be a recognisable psychiatric illness
      • Nicholls v Rankin - shaken up after RTA insufficient
      • Reilly v Merseyside -claustrophobia with physical symptoms insufficient
      • Primary victims
        • 1) Foreseeability
          • Page v Smith - provided personal injury foreseeable a duty of care can arise
          • Grieves v F T Everard & Sons and others - confirmed Page
          • Thin skull rule - can succeed if some person  personal injury is foreseeable to an ordinary person, even if injury is greater (Page/Brice v Brown)
        • 2) Zone of danger
          • Grieves F T Everard & Sons and others - anxiety foreseeable but not psychiatric harm
            • Primary victims confined to - 1) those who suffer fear/distress causing psychiatric harm as a result of fear from being in an accident 2) psychiatric harm suffered as a result of events that have happened
          • Duty can arise if claimant isn't in danger but fears he is if fear is genuine and defendant can reasonably foresee that a person of ordinary fortitude in claimants position would suffer psychiatric harm
          • Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd - can be in zone of danger through fear of injury to someone else
      • Secondary victims
        • 1) Shock
          • Sion v Hampstead HA - deterioration over 2 weeks not sufficient
          • Tredget v Bexley HA - death of baby two days after birth sufficient
          • Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust - death of baby 36 hours later sufficient
        • 2) Foreseeability
          • Bourhill v Young - train accident occurred behind her, not reasonably foreseeable
          • If psychiatric harm is reasonable to a person of normal fortitude, a person of abnormal susceptibility can recover the full extent (Brice v Brown)
          • Must show psychiatric harm reasonably foreseeable to a person of normal fortitude/customary phlegm
        • 3) Proximity
          • Proximity of relationship
            • Alcock - close tie of love and affection (rebuttable presumption)
            • Robertson and Rough v Forth Bridge Joint Board - workmate for 40 years insufficient
          • Proximity of time and space
            • Alcock - must witness distressing event or come upon "immediate aftermath"
            • McLoughlin v O'Brian - family at hospital still in state of accident so sufficient
            • Alcock - identifying bodies 9 hours later too long
            • Taylor v Somerset HA - injury must result from distressing event rather than death
          • Proximity of perception
            • Palmer v Tees HA - must actually see/hear the event first hand
        • Rescuers
          • Monk v P C Harrington Ltd & others - treated as primary victims if in zone of physical danger
          • White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - otherwise treated as secondary victims
          • Chadwick v British Railways Board - neither primary or secondary victim but still able to claim


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort resources »