Tort of negligence - psychiatric damage
- Created by: BegumF93
- Created on: 12-05-17 12:24
View mindmap
- psychiatric damage
- physical injury?
- yes
- symptoms must be medically recognised
- no?
- Induced by shock
- immediate and sudden - not gradual.
- appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying sight or sound or horrifying event.
- recognised psychiatric injury
- no?
- Induced by shock
- immediate and sudden - not gradual.
- appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying sight or sound or horrifying event.
- recognised psychiatric injury
- what is a recognised condition?
- based on medical evidence
- normal grief = not medically recognised. Vernon v Bosely
- miscarriage: is recognised Bournhill Young
- what is a recognised condition?
- immediate and sudden - not gradual.
- Induced by shock
- what is a recognised condition?
- based on medical evidence
- normal grief = not medically recognised. Vernon v Bosely
- miscarriage: is recognised Bournhill Young
- no?
- immediate and sudden - not gradual.
- Induced by shock
- yes
- secondary victim? Page v Smith(1995)
- Witnesses the injury to someone else
- recognised psychiatric injury brought on by a sudden event.
- Foreseeable that harm would come about?
- Foreseability of psychiatric harm
- proximity of relationship
- Proximity of time and space.
- Proximity of perception
- Foreseeable that harm would come about?
- recognised psychiatric injury brought on by a sudden event.
- Fears for the safety of another person
- Witnesses the injury to someone else
- recognised psychiatric injury brought on by a sudden event.
- Foreseeable that harm would come about?
- Foreseability of psychiatric harm
- proximity of relationship
- Proximity of time and space.
- Proximity of perception
- Foreseeable that harm would come about?
- recognised psychiatric injury brought on by a sudden event.
- Witnesses the injury to someone else
- Witnesses the injury to someone else
- Primary victim? page v smith(1995)
- someone who reasonably believed they are in danger
- It must be reasonably foreseeable that some harm would come about but not necessarily psychiatric injury.
- someone who is in the actual area of danger
- someone who reasonably believed they are in danger
- rescuers?
- where they in actual danger/reasonably believed to be - chadwick v BTC (1967) & White v CC of SY Police (1999).
- physical injury?
- Primary victim? page v smith(1995)
- someone who reasonably believed they are in danger
- It must be reasonably foreseeable that some harm would come about but not necessarily psychiatric injury.
- someone who is in the actual area of danger
- someone who reasonably believed they are in danger
- recognised psychiatric injury brought on by shock
Comments
No comments have yet been made