Nervous Shock
- 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'.
- DULIEU V WHITE
- REILLY V MERSEYSIDE
- BOURHILL V YOUNG
- Claimants must be within the 'area of impact' for a claim to succeed.
- DOOLEY V CAMMELL LAIRD
- 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
- Need not suffer any physical injury, if he is present at the shocking event and is as risk of harm
- 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'.
- TAYLOR V SOMERSET
- 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.
- May be primary victims in the shocking event.
- 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.
Similar Law resources:
Teacher recommended
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made