Psychiatric Harm Flashcards
(15 cards)
What distinguishes “primary” from “secondary” victims in psychiatric harm claims?
A. Primary victims are in the zone of physical danger; secondary victims witness harm to others
B. Primary victims suffer physical injury leading to psychiatric harm; secondary victims do not
C. Primary victims must show sudden shock; secondary victims show gradual illness
D. Primary victims have no close ties; secondary victims are family members
A. Primary victims are in the zone of physical danger; secondary victims witness harm to others.
Explanation: Primary victims either suffer or reasonably fear physical injury, placing them in the “zone of danger,” whereas secondary victims suffer psychiatric harm from witnessing injury to others
Which is NOT a required element for a secondary victim to recover psychiatric harm?
A. Close tie of love and affection to the primary victim
B. Independent economic loss as a result of the harm
C. Proximity in time and space to the event or its immediate aftermath
D. Sudden shock rather than gradual realization
B. Independent economic loss as a result of the harm.
Explanation: Secondary victims must satisfy Alcock’s control mechanisms (tie, proximity, sudden shock); economic loss is irrelevant
What is the leading case that established the “floodgates” concern and control mechanisms for secondary victims?
A. Bourhill v Young
B. Page v Smith
C. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
D. McLoughlin v O’Brian
C. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire.
Explanation: Alcock set out the requirements—close relationship, proximity, and direct perception—when a claimant witnesses harm to others
Which scenario qualifies someone as a “primary victim”?
A. A bystander who hears an accident on the radio and becomes depressed
B. A mother who sees her child injured on CCTV later that day
C. A commuter trapped in a train crash who fears for their safety
D. An insurer who learns of the loss and suffers stress
D. An insurer who learns of the loss and suffers stress.
Explanation: Insurers are not in the zone of danger nor witnesses of physical harm; thus they cannot be primary victims
Emma hears a loud crash and, fearing she has been hit by a car, develops PTSD. She was not struck. Can she recover?
A. Yes—as a primary victim, she reasonably feared personal injury
B. No—she was not physically injured
C. Yes—as a secondary victim, she witnessed harm
D. No—she must show economic loss
A. Yes—as a primary victim, she reasonably feared personal injury.
Explanation: Reasonable fear of personal harm places her in the category of primary victims entitled to recover
Mark arrives at hospital two hours after his spouse’s serious accident and breaks down. He was told of the crash en route. Can he recover as a secondary victim?
A. Yes—close tie and shock suffice
B. No—he was not present at the scene or immediate aftermath
C. Yes—immediacy is not required
D. No—he is a primary victim
B. No—he was not present at the scene or immediate aftermath.
Explanation: Secondary victims must witness the event or its immediate aftermath; delayed arrival fails the proximity test
A worker develops chronic anxiety after months of witnessing bullying but experiences no single sudden event. Is this recoverable?
A. Yes—gradual psychiatric harm is allowed
B. Yes—bullying is a personal injury
C. No—must arise from a sudden shock
D. No—employer immunity applies
C. No—must arise from a sudden shock.
Explanation: Psychiatric harm claims require a sudden traumatic event, not gradual stress from repeated incidents
Lucy, a close friend (but not family) of a heart attack victim, sees paramedics resuscitate him. Can she claim as a secondary victim?
A. Yes—immediacy and shock suffice
B. Yes—any close witness may recover
C. No—paramedics’ actions exclude liability
D. No—no recognised tie of love and affection
D. No—no recognised tie of love and affection.
Explanation: Only close family relationships or cohabitants satisfy the “love and affection” requirement for secondary victims
Which statement best describes “bystander” claims in psychiatric harm?
A. Bystanders with no tie of love and affection cannot claim, even if shocked
B. Bystanders can claim irrespective of relationship if they witness the event
C. Bystanders may recover if they later learn of the event within 24 hours
D. Bystanders are primary victims if they help the injured
A. Bystanders with no tie of love and affection cannot claim, even if shocked.
Explanation: Control mechanisms bar recovery to casual witnesses lacking a qualifying relationship
Which of these is an example of “psychiatric harm beyond primary and secondary victims”?
A. A doctor operating on a patient suffers PTSD from the surgery
B. A firefighter resuscitating a victim develops depression
C. A relative watching CCTV footage later feels extreme distress
D. A passerby reading about an accident in the newspaper and suffers anxiety
B. A firefighter resuscitating a victim develops depression.
Explanation: A firefighter may qualify as a primary victim if exposed to danger; harm beyond these categories is not protected
Under what conditions can a rescuer recover psychiatric harm?
A. Only if the victim is a family member
B. Always, as rescuers are primary victims
C. Only if they enter danger and suffer shock while rescuing
D. Never—rescuers are barred by public policy
C. Only if they enter danger and suffer shock while rescuing.
Explanation: A rescuer may qualify as a primary victim if they reasonably perceive risk to themselves during the rescue
What policy rationale underpins the restrictive approach to psychiatric harm claims?
A. To align tort with contract law
B. To limit indeterminate liability and floodgates of claims
C. To encourage medical treatment
D. To protect professional rescuers only
D. To protect professional rescuers only.
Explanation: The primary policy is to limit indeterminate liability (floodgates); protection of rescuers is a sub-consideration but not the main rationale .
What distinguishes “primary” from “secondary” victims in psychiatric harm claims?
A. Primary victims are in the zone of physical danger; secondary victims witness harm to others
B. Primary victims suffer physical injury leading to psychiatric harm; secondary victims do not
C. Primary victims must show sudden shock; secondary victims show gradual illness
D. Primary victims have no close ties; secondary victims are family members
A. The period during which the scene remains substantially unchanged after the event.
Explanation: “Immediate aftermath” includes actions like viewing injured victims at the scene or shortly thereafter, before the scene or condition has materially changed
Can someone who watches a traumatic event live on television recover as a secondary victim?
A. Yes, if they perform a rescue
B. No, live TV viewing does not satisfy proximity or direct perception
C. Yes, if they have a close tie of affection
D. No, unless the broadcast was officially sanctioned
B. No, live TV viewing does not satisfy proximity or direct perception.
Explanation: Secondary victims must perceive the event with their own senses at the scene or its immediate aftermath; televised coverage does not qualify
Which types of rescuers are most likely to recover psychiatric harm as primary victims?
A. Professional rescuers only
B. Volunteers acting on a spontaneous emergency
C. Both professional and volunteer rescuers who reasonably fear for their own safety
D. Neither, as rescuers are barred by public policy
C. Both professional and volunteer rescuers who reasonably fear for their own safety.
Explanation: Rescuers—whether professional or lay—may recover if they enter the “zone of danger” and reasonably apprehend personal harm while performing the rescue
