Courts will only compensate for medically recognized illnesses rather than claims for distress, sorrow or grief - Also they are more likely to award Comp. if it has come from a physical injury - Attia v British Gas [1987]
1 of 11
Four Main Policy Considerations of Courts in PI cases
1. Difficulty in differentiating grief and pysch. illness 2. People "looking for" compensation 3. Floodgates of liability 4. Disproportionate liability concerns
2 of 11
Types of Victim in PI
Primary Victims - A victim who has reasonable feared for own safety and been placed in physical danger by D's negligence & Secondary Victims - Witnesses or those involved in the immediate aftermath - Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire [1992]
3 of 11
Primary Victim
Provided physical harm is foreseeable. Pysch harm does not have to be - Paige v Smith [1996]
4 of 11
Secondary Victims
Pysch Illness must be reasonably foreseeable to a victim of normal fortitude - Bourhill v Young [1943]
5 of 11
Lord Wilberforce's Alcock Control Mechanisms to Restrict Liability 1
1. Proximity of Relationship with immediate victim must be a "close relationship of love and affection" (Only presumed for spouses, parents, children)
6 of 11
Lord Wilberforce's Alcock Control Mechanisms to Restrict Liability 2
2. Proximity in time and space to a "high degree" (see Gaili-Atkinson [2003] and note a live TV broadcast does not cover this (Alcock)
7 of 11
Lord Wilberforce's Alcock Control Mechanisms to Restrict Liability 3
3. Sudden Shock - means by which the injury is caused - Sion v Hampsted HA [1994] "a coma is not a sudden shock so no liability" - Being informed of accident does not fulfill **
8 of 11
If you negligently give distressing news you may be liable
AG v Thameside and Glessop HA [1997]
9 of 11
Impact of White v CC of South Yorkshire [1998]
Employers: Duty to protect employees from pysch harm is no different from their duty to protect all people & Unwitting agents: Difficult to argue you unwittingly harmed TP bc of D negligence but it is possible (W v Essex CC [2000]
10 of 11
Impact of White v CC of South Yorkshire [1998] - Rescuers
WHo suffer physical injury is foreseeable [Haynes v Harwood 1935] and may even be owed a DoC if the one who is in danger isn't Videan [1963] & Who sufer pyschiatric harm must've been placed into a real physical danger
11 of 11
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Four Main Policy Considerations of Courts in PI cases
Back
1. Difficulty in differentiating grief and pysch. illness 2. People "looking for" compensation 3. Floodgates of liability 4. Disproportionate liability concerns
Comments
No comments have yet been made