2) Psychiatric Injury Flashcards

(10 cards)

1
Q

What is psychiatric damage

A

(negligence) - but to the mind rather than the body

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is needed for proving psychiatric injury in court

A

Medical evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What must you do before claiming for psychiatric injury

A

Whether the victim is a primary of secondary victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is a primary victim

A

A person who either suffers from a physical injury as a result of another negligence
- or where is is reasonably forceable that they may suffer physical damage and as a result suffered psychiatric injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is a secondary victim

A
  • A person who suffers psychological injury due to someones negligence but was not exposed to danger
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the official name for the leading case of psychiatric injury

A

Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire
10 claimants - nervous shock

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What do the case of Alcock say on what you need to have ignorer to be a secondary victim

A

Physical proximity
(therefore, watching on TV, hearing on radio, 3rd part etc its unlikely to claim)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What about in the case of where the victim has died, what must the claimant hold

A
  • Sufficient proximate relationship to the victim
  • Close tie of love + affection, which is presumed in some situations and needs to proved in others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What also needs to be proved, which is dependent on sufficient proximate relationship

A
  • Needs to be reasonably forceable that the claimant would of suffered psychological damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What does the law say on unconnected bystanders + Lord

A

HoL hinted that even with no sufficient proximate relationship, may be classed as secondary victim in exceptional circumstances
- Lord Keith “could no perhaps be entirely excluded”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly