Nervous Shock

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: jesskeayy
  • Created on: 14-04-17 13:18
View mindmap
  • Nervous Shock
    • A claim must involve an actual, recognised psychiatric condition capable of resulting from the shock in an accident. It must also have long-term effects.
      • DOOLEY V CAMMELL LAIRD
        • Principle extended to shock suffered from witnessing events involving close but not related people and fearing safety of the victim
      • HAMBROOK V STOKES
        • Limitations in this case were later extended to include a claim for nervous shock suffered as a result of witnessing traumatic events involving close family.
      • Claims are no longer allowed purely on the basis of foreseeability of a real and immediate fear of personal danger.
        • DULIEU V WHITE
          • First use of the 'Kennedy test'.
      • REILLY V MERSEYSIDE
      • BOURHILL V YOUNG
        • Claimants must be within the 'area of impact' for a claim to succeed.
    • An area of negligence, subject to uncertain development.
      • Developed through the recognition of psychiatric injury in the past 100 years, due to medical developments
      • Developed through policy considerations- the floodgates arguments decided by judges. Any wide decision may lead to an influx of claims similar.
    • CHADWICK V BRB
      • Automatic for rescuers to be able to claim, as a primary victim.
    • HALE V LONDON UNDERGROUND
      • Only professional rescuers will be ale to claim, those at the scene/ immediate aftermath.
    • MCLOUGHLIN V OBRIAN
      • New claims allowed for recovery when the claimant is not present at the scene, but at the immediate aftermath. This is very open to interpretation based on policy.
    • ALCOCK V SOUTH YORKSHIRE
      • Allowances for successful claims became much tighter and restrictive, to avoid the 'floodgates argument'.
    • Primary victims- present at the scene of the event and either injured or at risk of injury. Or the cause of another person's death/ injury
      • Need not suffer any physical injury, if he is present at the shocking event and is as risk of harm
        • PAGE V SMITH
        • SIMMONS V BRITISH STEEL
    • Secondary victims- present at the scene or its immediate aftermath and with a close tie of love and affection to primary victim, having witnessed/heard the event with their own unaided senses.
      • TAYLOR V SOMERSET
        • Courts have clear fine distinctions as to what is 'the immediate aftermath'.
    • Rescuers
      • May be primary victims in the shocking event.
        • HALE V LONDON UNDERGROUND
        • WHITE V SOUTH YORKSHIRE
          • Courts take a more restrictive attitude to claims, if the rescue worker suffers injury whilst carrying out their duties. They can claim where they are a 'primary victim'
        • SION V HHA
          • There must be a single shocking event causing the psychiatric injury rather than a gradual incident.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »