Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
21 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Page v Smith [1996] |
Primary Victims (Foreseeability) If reasonably foreseeable that D's negligence may cause physical harm and C is primary victim, C can recover for any psychiatric harm suffered |
|
|
Dulieu v White [1901] |
Primary Victims A horse and chart crashed into a pub and the barmaid was so shocked she had a miscarriage. Reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself can give rise to action. |
|
|
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] |
Primary Victims (Foreseeability) C's psychiatric injury held to be the same type of harm as his foreseeable physical injuries, as his suicide was not an uncommon result of depression |
|
|
Grieves v FT Everard & Sons [2007] |
Primary Victims (Foreseeability) C's claim rejected; C's depression in reaction to pleural plaques (which could not ground a claim) was held to be unforeseeable, as a reasonable person would merely feel anxious |
|
|
Bourhill v Young [1943] |
Secondary Victims (Foreseeability) C suffered serious psychiatric harm after seeing aftermath of accident; C's claim rejected - her injuries were not foreseeable and as a pregnant woman, she was particularly susceptible to shock (unlike a person of ordinary fortitude) |
|
|
Brice v Brown [1984] |
Secondary Victims (Foreseeability) C had a personality disorder since childhood, which became a psychiatric illness after minor accident; C's claim dismissed; It must be foreseeable that someone of "normal fortitude" would develop a psychiatric illness. If this works, then take victim as you find them. |
|
|
McLoughlin v O'Brian [1982] |
Secondary Victims (Alcock Control Mechanisms) C had arrived at hospital 2 hours after accident to her family and seeing the aftermath, developed psychiatric illness; Claim approved - C was held to have arrived upon immediate aftermath of accident |
|
|
Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire Police [1992] |
Secondary Victims (Alcock Control Mechanisms) 1. Relationship with victim 2. Proximity 3. Means by which shock transmitted Involved claims by relatives and loved ones of Hillsborough disaster victims who had suffered recognised psychiatric illnesses; Claim rejected as lack of proximity between C and D Lord Ackner (obiter) - live broadcast could exceptionally ground a claim if victims had clearly died on it |
|
|
Robertson v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board [1996] |
Secondary Victims (Alcock Control Mechanisms) C suffered psychiatric harm after watching colleague die; Claim rejected due to lack of relationship with victim- this is despite evidence showing that they had spent much time together |
|
|
McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1994] |
Secondary Victims (Alcock Control Mechanisms) |
|
|
Galli-Atkinson v Seghal [2003] |
Secondary Victims (Alcock Control Mechanisms) C suffered psychiatric harm after viewing injuries on daughter's dead body at morgue; Claim allowed; The aftermath could be seen to include more than one component- Latham LJ explained that the deceased’s mother’s visit to the mortuary could not be excluded from the events regarded as a part of the aftermath of the accident, making it one unbroken chain of events |
|
|
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] |
Secondary Victims (Alcock Control Mechanisms) C developed psychiatric illness after becoming increasingly aware that D's negligence was harming his son; claim dismissed - no trace of shock or "sudden appreciation of sight or sound of a horrifying event" |
|
|
North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] |
Secondary Victims (Alcock Control Mechanisms) C's claim was successful as shocking event was not confined to single moment in time, with whole 36-hour period considered a single event |
|
|
Wild v Southend Hospital NHS Trust [2014] |
Secondary Victims (Alcock Control Mechanisms) C had suffered psychiatric harm when he found out about death of his foetus and saw its birth; Claim dismissed - C witnessing consequences of D's negligence was not same as seeing a "horrifying event" |
|
|
White v CC of South Yorkshire Police [1998] |
Rescuers Cs were police officers who had been on duty on day of Hillsborough disaster; Claim rejected - neither a rescuer or employee could be in a special position to recover for psychiatric harm; rescuer can only be considered a primary victim if he was in danger/ reasonably believed that he was When viewed in context, courts did not want policemen to be compensated by virtue of the fact that they were rescuers when the relatives of the victims were not compensated |
|
|
Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995] QBD |
Assumption of responsibility by employer Employer found liable for employee's stress - while it was not liable for first nervous breakdown due to it not being reasonably foreseeable, it was for the second nervous breakdown was as it was reasonably foreseeable that if workload not reduced, this would happen Court felt that an employer's duty to exclude risk of psychiatric injury in order to provide a safe system of work could not be excluded |
|
|
Hatton v Sunderland [2002] |
Assumption of responsibility by employer Confirmed Walker; duty owed in terms of psychiatric injury caused by stress at work |
|
|
Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd [1951] |
Involuntary Participants C was operating crane, which due to D's negligence, dropped its load onto a ship with men; Claim successful - C had been put into position where he believed that he would be the involuntary cause of others' deaths |
|
|
Monk v PC Harrington Ltd [2008] |
Involuntary Participants While court acknowledged that primary victim category extended to involuntary participants and those who reasonably believed that they endangered another, no reasonable basis for C's belief. Claim rejected |
|
|
Farrell v Avon Health Authority [2001] |
Communication of shocking news C was owed duty of care by D when D had negligently told him that his newborn son had died, with C spending 20 mins holding who he thought was his son before being informed by D that that was not his son |
|
|
Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] |
Self-Harm by Defendant C claimed psychiatric harm for seeing his son harm himself; claim rejected - as D's injuries were self-inflicted against public policy to hold him liable |
