4288275
Description
Flashcards by pavlina.hunt, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by pavlina.hunt
almost 9 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Controlling factors | - Medically diagnosed psychiatric condition (Hintz v Berry); - A sudden even or its immediate aftermath negligently caused by D; - Primary or Secondary Victim (Page v Smith). |
| Medically diagnosed psychiatric condition | - Hintz v Berry - mere grief, distress or anger is not enough; - Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - grief, sorrow, deprivation, and the necessity for caring for loved ones who have suffered injury are all a necessary part of life which must be accepted; - Vernon v Bosley No1 - the grief and distress of a father who watched his children drown lead to mental illness, for which he could recover. |
| A sudden event or its immediate aftermath | - Sion v Hampstead Health Authority - the effect on a father of sitting for two weeks by the bedside of his dying son, who was injured due to D's negligence, was not sufficient to found a claim; - Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust - a mother, whoes baby died in her arms, suffered a "pathological grief reaction", and the judge awarded damages on the basis of a 36-hour-long "shocking event". Affirmed by CA. |
| Primary victim (PV) | Those who are within the zone of physical danger. There is presumed to be a duty of care not to cause them physical injury and this is extended to include a duty not to cause them mental harm. They can recover for any psychiatric injury, regardless if they suffered physical one. Even when it was not reasonably foreseeable. |
| Primary victim (cases) | - Dulieu v White - a barmaid suffered miscarriage due to a the shock of her seeing a horse and a cart crushing into the pub, she feared for her life - establishes recoverability for psychiatric injury; - Page v Smith - a car crash caused the recurrence of chronic fatigue syndrome. ... in law psychiatric injury is no different than physical; ... reasonable foreseeability of physical injury is sufficient to bring a duty in regards with psychiatric. |
| The 'thin skull' rule | Applies to psychiatric injury in the same way as to physical injury: - Brice v Brown - a woman with hysterical personality disorder was in a taxi, which crashed, no physical harm, but became very unstable mentally. Since a person with normal fortitude might also have suffered psychological injury, therefore the plaintiff could claim for the full extent. |
| Secondary Victim (SV) | Those who are NOT at risk of physical injury themselves, but who suffer psychiatric injury as a result of: - witnessing other people being physically harmed; or - fear that such injury might occur. |
| Secondary Victim policy-oriented control mechanisms | - The psychiatric injury suffered must be reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude (Bourhill v Young) - The Alcock control mechanisms |
| The Alcock control mechanisms | 1. A sufficient close relationship of love an affection with the PV - rebuttable presumption between spouses and parents and children; 2. Proximity in time and space to the accident or its immediate aftermath - (dead, but not cleaned up in hospital 2 hours later OK (McLoughlin v O'Brian); 9 hours cleaned up in the morge NOT OK (Alcock); 5 hours and IU in hospital cleaned NOT OK (Berisha v Stone Superstore Ltd)); 3. Immediate appreciation by sight or sound of the accident - not seen on TV or told by someone else. |
| Rescuers | In the past a special category, not can only claim for psychiatric injury if they satisfy the preconditions for PV or SV. - White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police - police officers suffering psychiatric injury after helping in the Hillsborough Disaster could not claim due to strict application of Alcock criteria. |
| 'assumption of responsibility' cases | D owes a duty of care not to cause C psychiatric harm where D has 'assumed responsibility' to avoid such reasonably foreseeable harm. - employer, employee (Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis) - bookmaker and gambler (Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd) - doctor and patient (AB v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust); - police and police informant (Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police); - prison officer and prisoners (Butchart v Home Office); - occupational stress claims (Walker v Northumberland County Council). |
| Unwilling participants | Extended PV category - unwilling participants who reasonably feel that they have put another in danger. - Dooley v Cammel Laird & Co Ltd - as a result of his employer's negligence, a crane operator dropped high load into the hold of a ship where men were working. - W v Essex County Council - parents claimed for unwillingly putting their child in danger after finding out that a foster child has been sexually abusing her. |
| Traditional distinction between PV and SV | |
| Limitation period | Adults: 3 years from the event Children: 3 years after 18 |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.