Negligence: Pure Psychiatric Harm- FS

Question 1

What is meant by “pure psychiatric harm” in the context of negligence claims?

Answer 1

It refers to psychiatric harm suffered without any accompanying physical injury, such as medically recognized conditions or shock-induced physical effects.

Question 2

What are the two key requirements for a claim of pure psychiatric harm to succeed?

Answer 2

(1) The harm must result from a sudden shock.

(2) it must be a medically recognized psychiatric illness or shock-induced physical condition.

Question 3

Can fear, sorrow, or worry alone give rise to a successful claim for pure psychiatric harm in negligence?

Answer 3

No. These emotions are not medically recognized psychiatric illnesses and are therefore not recoverable under a claim for pure psychiatric harm.

Question 4

What kind of harm is compensable under pure psychiatric harm if someone witnesses a horrifying event?

Answer 4

Only if the witness develops a recognized psychiatric condition such as depression or PTSD as a result of a sudden shock.

Question 5

Why did a claim fail in a case where a parent slowly realized over time that their child’s medical injury was due to negligence?

Answer 5

Because the harm was caused by a gradual realization, not a sudden shock, which is required for pure psychiatric harm claims.

Question 6

In a scenario where someone narrowly avoids a negligent accident and suffers a heart attack, could they bring a successful claim?

Answer 6

Yes, if the heart attack is a shock-induced physical condition and there is evidence of negligence, they could claim for pure psychiatric harm.

Question 7

In a family witnessing a crane collapse and experiencing fear, which parent might successfully claim damages if one suffers anxiety and the other clinical depression?

Answer 7

Only the parent with clinical depression could succeed, as anxiety without medical recognition is not sufficient for a pure psychiatric harm claim.

Question 8

What role does the concept of “sudden shock” play in establishing liability for pure psychiatric harm?

Answer 8

The harm must result from a sudden, horrifying event—an immediate assault on the nervous system—not from a gradual emotional response over time.

Question 9

What distinguishes a primary victim from an actual victim in claims for pure psychiatric harm?

Answer 9

A primary victim suffers psychiatric harm from fearing for their own safety but suffers no physical injury, while an actual victim suffers both psychiatric and physical harm.

Question 10

What two conditions must a claimant meet to be considered a primary victim of pure psychiatric harm?

Answer 10

They must have been in the zone of danger and reasonably believed they were at risk of physical harm.

Question 11

What is the test for establishing a duty of care to a primary victim of psychiatric harm?

Answer 11

The defendant must have reasonably foreseen that their negligence could cause physical injury to the claimant.

Question 12

Can a claimant recover for psychiatric harm if physical injury was foreseeable, but the psychiatric harm was not?

Answer 12

Yes. If physical injury is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for psychiatric harm even if it wasn’t specifically predicted.

Question 13

What legal principle allows a claimant to recover full damages for psychiatric harm even if they have a pre-existing condition?

Answer 13

The eggshell skull rule – the defendant must take the claimant as they find them.

Question 14

In a case where someone narrowly avoids a car crash and later develops PTSD, what legal category would they fall into?

Answer 14

They would be considered a primary victim of pure psychiatric harm due to being in danger and fearing for their own safety.

Question 15

Why is it easier for primary victims to establish a duty of care than for secondary victims?

Answer 15

Because the test for primary victims only requires foreseeability of physical harm, not the stricter Alcock criteria applied to secondary victims.

Question 16

If someone suffers psychiatric harm after witnessing a coach crash into their workplace and fearing for their life, but isn’t injured, what must they show to succeed in a claim?

Answer 16

That they were within the danger zone, feared for their safety, suffered sudden shock, and developed a medically recognized psychiatric illness.

Question 17

What defines a secondary victim in cases of pure psychiatric harm?

Answer 17

A person who suffers psychiatric harm from witnessing injury or danger to another, typically a close relative, without being in danger themselves.

Question 18

What three elements must a secondary victim satisfy to establish a duty of care under the Alcock criteria?

Answer 18

(1) Psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable.

(2) there must be a close tie of love and affection to the primary victim.

(3) proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath in time and space.

Question 19

Why would someone who suffers psychiatric harm from identifying a relative’s body a week after an accident likely fail in their claim?

Answer 19

Because they were not proximate in time or space to the traumatic event or its immediate aftermath, which is required under the Alcock criteria.

Question 20

Can someone who watches a tragic event unfold on television bring a successful claim as a secondary victim?

Answer 20

Generally no, because courts have held that televised or reported events lack the necessary proximity in time and space to qualify under Alcock.

Question 21

What is the role of “proximity of relationship” in determining duty of care for secondary victims?

Answer 21

The claimant must have a close relationship—usually familial or deeply emotional—with the person endangered or harmed in the incident.

Question 22

Why is a person who fears for their own safety, but suffers no physical injury, not a secondary victim?

Answer 22

Because such a person is considered a primary victim, not a secondary one; the distinction lies in whether the fear is for oneself or another.

Question 23

If someone suffers psychiatric harm after seeing their injured children immediately after an accident, what must they prove to succeed as a secondary victim?

Answer 23

That they have a close relationship with the injured parties, were present at or shortly after the event, and developed a medically recognized psychiatric illness from a sudden shock.

Question 24

What does the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire illustrate about secondary victims?

Answer 24

That the courts require strict tests for proximity in relationship, time, and space, and will deny claims if any of these criteria are not met.

Question 25

What are the three Alcock criteria that a secondary victim must satisfy to establish a duty of care for pure psychiatric harm?

Answer 25

(1) Psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude. (2) there must be a close relationship of love and affection with the primary victim. (3) proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath in time and space.

Question 26

What is the standard used to assess foreseeability of psychiatric harm in a secondary victim?

Answer 26

The harm must be reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude in the claimant’s position.

Question 27

Why did a pregnant woman who heard but did not see a fatal crash and later viewed blood at the scene fail in her psychiatric harm claim?

Answer 27

Because it was not reasonably foreseeable that a person of ordinary fortitude in her position would suffer psychiatric harm, and she lacked proximity to the event.

Question 28

What relationships are presumed to be sufficiently close for secondary victim claims under the Alcock criteria?

Answer 28

Parent and child, spouses, and engaged couples—these relationships are presumed to involve love and affection unless rebutted.

Question 29

Can someone without a legally presumed relationship of love and affection bring a secondary victim claim?

Answer 29

Yes, but they must provide evidence of a close emotional bond equivalent to that presumed in family or spousal relationships.

Question 30

What does “proximity in time and space” require under the Alcock criteria?

Answer 30

The claimant must have directly seen or heard the event or its immediate aftermath with their own senses, being in the vicinity shortly after the incident.

Question 31

Why would someone who identifies a relative’s body at the mortuary a week after an accident fail in a secondary victim claim?

Answer 31

Because this does not qualify as the immediate aftermath of the accident, failing the time and space proximity requirement.

Question 32

Why would a bystander who suffers psychiatric harm from watching strangers injured in a crash be unable to claim as a secondary victim?

Answer 32

Because they lack a close relationship of love and affection with the injured parties, which is required under the Alcock criteria.

Question 33

Why is witnessing an event on TV or hearing about it via news reports typically insufficient for a secondary victim claim?

Answer 33

Because courts have held that such experiences lack the required proximity in time and space, and are not equivalent to witnessing the event or its immediate aftermath in person.

Question 34

Can a person recover damages for psychiatric harm as a secondary victim if they did not suffer a medically recognized illness?

Answer 34

No. Like primary victims, secondary victims must suffer a medically recognized psychiatric illness or shock-induced physical condition for the claim to succeed.

Question 35

Do rescuers receive special legal status when claiming for pure psychiatric harm in negligence cases?

Answer 35

No. Rescuers are treated the same as other claimants and must qualify as either primary or secondary victims to claim for psychiatric harm.

Question 36

Under what condition can a rescuer be classified as a primary victim for psychiatric harm?

Answer 36

If the rescuer is exposed to danger or reasonably believes they are in danger and suffers psychiatric harm as a result.

Question 37

Why were police officers at the Hillsborough disaster denied recovery for psychiatric harm in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire?

Answer 37

Because they were not in personal danger during the rescue and were therefore treated as secondary victims, failing to meet the Alcock criteria.

Question 38

What makes it easier to establish a duty of care for a primary victim compared to a secondary victim?

Answer 38

For primary victims, the duty only requires that physical injury be reasonably foreseeable, not the stricter Alcock tests.

Question 39

In a scenario where a civilian crawls into train wreckage to assist the injured and later suffers PTSD, how would courts likely classify them?

Answer 39

As a primary victim, because they entered a zone of danger and reasonably feared for their safety, making physical harm foreseeable.

Question 40

What is the legal significance of the case Chadwick v British Railways Board for rescuers claiming psychiatric harm?

Answer 40

It established that a rescuer who enters a dangerous scene and fears for their safety can be considered a primary victim and owed a duty of care.

Question 41

Can being a professional rescuer, such as a firefighter or police officer, automatically qualify someone as a primary victim in psychiatric harm claims?

Answer 41

No. Professional status alone does not alter the classification; exposure to danger must still be shown for primary victim status.

Question 42

If a rescuer meets the criteria of being in danger and experiencing psychiatric harm, what must be foreseeable for a duty of care to exist?

Answer 42

That physical injury was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances.