Nervous Shock

Question 1

Reilly v Merseyside Regional Health Authority (1994)

Answer 1

Facts- Couple became trapped in a lift
Suffered insomnia and claustrophobia after rescue

Principle- Not classed as recognised psychiatric illness
Must involve actual, recognised psychiatric condition capable of resulting from the shook of the incident and recognised as having long-te effects

Question 2

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Answer 2

Facts- A pregnant woman had got off a tram, hearing the impact of a crash involving a motorcyclist, later seeing blood on the road and then giving birth to a still-born child

Principle- stranger to the cyclist- outside area of foreseeable shock
Added to the impact twat-whether the claimant fall into the ‘area of shock’

Question 3

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority (1994)

Answer 3

Facts- A father watched his son gradually deteriorate and die over 14 days
Gradual realisation that death might result from medical negligence

Principle-

Question 4

Primary victims

Dulieu v White & Sons (1901)

Answer 4

Facts- negligently driven horse and van burst through window of a pub

Woman was washing glasses and put in fear of her own safety

Principle- Claims first allowed for foreseeability of a real and immediate fear of personal danger (‘Kennedy Test)

Question 5

Page v Smith (1996)

Answer 5

Facts- ME recoveree involved in small car crash
No physical injury but triggered ME and was unable to return to job

Principle- Some kind of personal injury must be foreseeable; can be physical or psychiatric

Question 6

Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co (1951)

Answer 6

Facts- Crane driver saw a load fall
Feared workmates underneath would have been injured

Principle- principle extended to include witnessing events involving close but not related people and fearing for the safety of the victim

Question 7

Secondary Victims

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992)

Answer 7

Facts- Police allowed large crowd of supporters into a caged pen at the start of the football match
Resulted in 95 people suffering injuries and were killed
Large number of claims varying from those present and not present and those with close ties and friends

Principle-Proximity of relationship with a party who was a victim of the incident- depends on a close tie of love and affection with the victim or the presence at a scene as a rescuer

Proximity in time and space to the negligent incident- in respect of an incident or in the close aftermath they was witnessed or experienced directly, none where the incident was merely reported

Cause of the nervous shock- court accepted that this must be a result of witnessing or hearing the horrifying event or immediate aftermath

Question 8

Hambrook v Stokes Broa (1925)

Answer 8

Fact- Woman saw runaway Lorre go downhill towards where she had left her these children
Suffered shock when she heard been involved

Principle- Disapproved Kennedy Test
Extended to include a claim as a result of witnessing traumatic events involving close family members and therefore fearing for their own safety

Question 9

Mcloughin v Jones (2001)

Answer 9

Facts- claimant wrongly convicted and imprisoned as a result of solicitors negligence
Suffered psychiatric injury

Principle-
Injury has resulted from another form of inconvenience or distress that itself had resulted from the traumatic event

Question 10

Rescuers

Chadwick v British Railways Board (1967)

Answer 10

Facts- man asked to crawl into a small space after a two-train crash to give injections to injured passengers
Suffered anxiety neurosis

Principle- rescuer was able to recover when suffering nervous shock
Classed as a primary victim

Question 11

White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998)

Answer 11

Facts- police officers claimed to have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder following part in operation after the Hillsborough Disaster

Principle- rescuer will only be able to claim if they are a genuinely primary victim- police officers not in immediate danger
Restrictive attitude to members of emergency services in the aftermath of an disaster in the course of their duties

Question 12

Hale v London Underground (1992)

Answer 12

Facts- fireman suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after King’s Cross Disaster

Principle- only professional rescuers will be able to claim or those present at the scene or in the immediate aftermath

Question 13

McFarlane v E E Caledonia (1994)

Answer 13

Facts- Person helping to receive casualties from the Piper Alpha Oilrig

Principle- those considered as by standees will not be able to claim as they are not at risk

Question 14

Unusual Cases

Attia v British Gas (1987)

Answer 14

Facts- Woman witnessed house burning down
Was within the area of impact
Reasonable foresight of the contractors who negligently installed her central heating

Principle- principle of reasonable foresight has allowed for recovery claims even where the principal damage was to property rather that involving injury to or the safety of a person

Question 15

Owens v Liverpool Corporation (1933)

Answer 15

Facts- relatives of a deceased person claimed when a coffin fell out a hearse that they were following

Principle- claims allowed where the person with whom the close tie exists would be impossible

Question 16

W v Essex and Another (2000)

Answer 16

Facts- parents bought psychiatric claims when a foster child sexually abused the children
Parents told child had no history of violence
claims failed, parents did not witness event and were classed as secondary victims

Principle- courts only prepared to accept claim for secondary victims where they are present at the event or its immediate aftermath and witnessing the event with own unaided senses, are arguably not satisfied