Tort of negligence - psychiatric damage

HideShow resource information
  • 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?
              • based on medical evidence
              • normal grief = not medically recognised. Vernon v Bosely
              • miscarriage: is recognised Bournhill Young
    • 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
      • 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
    • 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
    • rescuers?
      • where they in actual danger/reasonably believed to be - chadwick v BTC (1967) & White v CC of SY Police (1999).
  • 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
  • recognised psychiatric injury brought on by shock

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Psychiatric damage resources »