Psychiatric harm

Question 1

General principle for psychiatric harm?

Answer 1

General principle for determining a duty of care of not have universal application. May adopt a different approach especially when the loss is purely psychotic harm.

The tort is still negligence – the loss Is psychiatric harm

Question 2

What is psychiatric harm?

Answer 2

Psychiatric harm – form of psychiatric illness that the claimant has suffered as a result of the perception of traumatic events. Must be either
- Medically recognised
- Shock induces physical condition

Question 3

Who is the primary, actual and secondary victim?

Answer 3

Actual victim - person who has suffered the physical harm and posisble also the psychiartic harm.

Primary victim - someone who does NOT suffer physical harm but suffers psychiatric harm as a result of fear for their OWN safety.

Secondary victim - someone who does NOT suffer physical harm but suffers psychiatric harm as a result of fear for someone else

Question 4

Elements for secondary victims?

Answer 4

Relationship of love - only succeeded on parent and child or married couples.

Test to establish a duty of care

Alcock criteria

Psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable - ordinary person

Proximity of relationship between claimant and the victim
Relationships of close ties of love and affection. They are rebuttably presumed in certain cases.

Proximity in time and space
1. Should be present at scene.

Injury must be result of sudden shock

Must be fair just and reasonable

Question 5

Test for primary victims?

Answer 5

Test for duty of care
- Page v smith – defendant must have reasonably foreseen that the claimant might suffer physical injury as a result of negligence
- First step – psychiatric harm must be medically recognised
- If defendant reasonably foresaw physical damage no need to foresee psychiatric damage as well. Thin skull rule applies here too.
- Proximity and fair and just and reasonable -

Question 6

Assumption of responsibility cases for psychiatric harm?

Answer 6

Test is
Psychiatric test was reasonably foreseeable

Assumption of responsibility cases - beyond secondary’s victim
Will owe a duty of care not to cause psychotic harm where assumed responsibility
Employers
Doctors
Police- informant

Include occupational stress claims

Employer - first break down was not reasonably foreseeable but second was because workload was not reduced.

Foreseeability is assessed through this.
Nature and extent of work
Signs of stress
Size and scope of business.

CHECK NOTES.