Topic 6 - Psychiatric harm

Question 1

What is the test for establishing a duty of care for primary victims?

Answer 1

The defendant must reasonably have foreseen that the claimant might suffer physical injury as a result of their negligence.

Question 2

What is required for a claimant to recover damages for psychiatric harm?

Answer 2

The claimant must have suffered a medically recognised psychiatric illness or a shock-induced physical condition.

Question 3

What type of damages were allowed in the case of Hinz v Berry?

Answer 3

Only damages related to depression were allowed as it was the only psychiatric harm recognized.

Question 4

What must be shown for a primary victim to establish a duty of care?

Answer 4

Physical harm must be reasonably foreseeable.

Question 5

What does the ‘thin skull’ rule state?

Answer 5

If physical injury is reasonably foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the psychiatric harm, even if the claimant has a pre-existing condition.

Question 6

What are the key elements to structure primary victim claims?

Answer 6

1. Identify the parties. 2. Identify the loss. 3. Identify the claimant as a primary victim. 4. Duty of Care determination.

Question 7

What is the Alcock criteria?

Answer 7

A set of requirements to determine when a duty of care is owed to a secondary victim for pure psychiatric harm.

Question 8

What are the three criteria of the Alcock criteria?

Answer 8

• Psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable
• Proximity of relationship between the claimant and the victim
• Proximity in time and space.

Question 9

What must secondary victims establish regarding psychiatric harm?

Answer 9

Psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude.

Question 10

What was the outcome of Bourhill v Young regarding duty of care?

Answer 10

No duty of care was owed as psychiatric harm was not foreseeable for the claimant.

Question 11

What is required for proximity of relationship under the Alcock criteria?

Answer 11

There must be close ties of love and affection with the victim.

Question 12

What presumption exists for relationships like parent/child or husband/wife?

Answer 12

Close ties of love and affection are rebuttably presumed.

Question 13

What does the term ‘immediate aftermath’ refer to in the context of secondary victims?

Answer 13

The claimant must have been present at the accident or its immediate aftermath.

Question 14

What was the significance of McLoughlin v O’Brian for secondary victims?

Answer 14

The court extended physical proximity to include the immediate aftermath of the accident.

Question 15

What was the outcome of Alcock regarding claims made via television broadcasts?

Answer 15

No duty was owed to a secondary victim who only witnessed events through television.

Question 16

What is the distinction between ‘accident’ cases and ‘medical crisis’ cases?

Answer 16

An accident is an unintended and unexpected event, while a medical crisis involves witnessing a death due to negligence in treatment.

Question 17

What key principle was established in Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust?

Answer 17

A doctor does not owe a duty of care to those who witness a medical crisis.

Question 18

What duty does a doctor owe to the family of a patient witnessing a medical crisis?

Answer 18

A doctor does not owe a duty of care to those witnessing a medical crisis

Question 19

What distinguishes ‘accident’ cases from ‘medical crisis’ cases?

Answer 19

‘Accident’ cases involve unintended external events causing injury or death, while ‘medical crisis’ cases are often prolonged and complex developments caused by illness

Question 20

What must a secondary victim demonstrate to recover damages?

Answer 20

They must be present at the scene of the accident or its immediate aftermath

Question 21

What three criteria must be met for a secondary victim to recover damages according to the Supreme Court?

Answer 21

• Close ties of love and affection with the victim
• Presence at the accident or its immediate aftermath
• Psychiatric harm caused by direct perception of the accident or its immediate aftermath

Question 22

True or False: The psychiatric injury must be caused by a sudden shock to the nervous system.

Answer 22

False

Question 23

What is sufficient to establish causation for psychiatric harm?

Answer 23

A causal connection between witnessing the accident and the illness suffered

Question 24

Is it necessary for the accident witnessed to be horrifying for a claim to succeed?

Answer 24

No, it is necessary to show that psychiatric harm was reasonably foreseeable

Question 25

What does proximity in time and space refer to in secondary victim claims?

Answer 25

The claimant must be close in time and space to the accident

Question 26

What is the significance of proximity in secondary victim claims?

Answer 26

Proximity is critical; without it, there can be no claim for psychiatric harm

Question 27

In which case did the Supreme Court confirm that medical crisis cases are not analogous to accident cases?

Answer 27

Paul

Question 28

What was the outcome of Taylor v A Novo regarding the claimant's proximity to the accident?

Answer 28

The claim failed because the daughter was not present at the scene of the accident or its immediate aftermath

Question 29

What must be identified in the structure for secondary victim claims?

Answer 29

* Parties to duty * Loss (e.g. depression) * Claimant as a secondary victim * Duty of Care (Alcock criteria)

Question 30

What is meant by 'assumption of responsibility' in psychiatric harm cases?

Answer 30

A defendant owes a duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric harm when they have 'assumed responsibility' for the claimant's well-being

Question 31

Provide an example of an 'assumption of responsibility' case.

Answer 31

* Employer/employee (Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis) * Doctor/patient (AB v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust) * Police/police informant (Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police)

Question 32

What was the key finding in Walker v Northumberland County Council regarding employer liability?

Answer 32

An employer owes a duty of care for psychiatric harm caused by work-related stress

Question 33

What are the three elements considered when assessing employer liability in occupational stress claims?

Answer 33

* Reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric harm * Relationship between claimant characteristics and employer demands * Signs of stress indicating impending harm

Question 34

What happens once the threshold of foreseeability is crossed in occupational stress claims?

Answer 34

It is immaterial whether a person of ordinary fortitude would have suffered the harm