Psychiatric Injury

Question 1

What must C have suffered?

Answer 1

C must have suffered a recognised psychiatric injury.

Question 2

Which case established the requirement for a recognised psychiatric injury?

Answer 2

Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1999)

Question 3

What is required for causation?

Answer 3

There must be a causal link between the defendant’s breach of duty and the damage.

Question 4

Which case is associated with the concept of causation?

Answer 4

Calascione v Dixon (1994)

Question 6

What are Primary Victims?

Answer 6

Those at the scene of the incident who are within the zone of danger created by the defendant’s negligence and suffer mental injury.

This means that it is foreseeable they could have suffered physical injury from the risk of harm they were exposed to.

Question 7

What case is associated with the concept of Primary Victims?

Answer 7

Dulieu v White & Sons

This case illustrates the legal principles surrounding Primary Victims and their claims.

Question 8

What are Secondary Victims?

Answer 8

Those who are not in personal physical danger but witnessed the accident or its aftermath and suffered psychiatric damage

This includes suffering from someone else’s injury or fear of such injury occurring.

Question 9

What are the leading cases related to Secondary Victims?

Answer 9

McLoughlin v O’Brien (1983) and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1992)

These cases set important legal precedents regarding the liability for psychiatric harm to Secondary Victims.

Question 10

What must be reasonably foreseeable for a claim of psychiatric injury?

Answer 10

That a person of normal fortitude would have suffered psychiatric injury as a result of negligence

Referenced case: Page v Smith (1996)

Question 11

Which case established the principle of reasonable foreseeability in psychiatric injury claims?

Answer 11

Page v Smith (1996)

This case clarified the standard for determining foreseeability in negligence.

Question 12

What type of relationships can have presumed ties of love and affection?

Answer 12

Parent and child, spouses, fiancés

This principle was established in McLoughlin v O’Brien and extended in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.

Question 13

In which case was it held that ties of love and affection are presumed between parent and child?

Answer 13

McLoughlin v O’Brien

This case established the presumption of emotional ties in certain relationships.

Question 14

Which case extended the presumption of ties of love and affection to fiancés?

Answer 14

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

This case broadened the scope of relationships recognized for presumed emotional ties.

Question 15

True or False: Brothers automatically have presumed ties of love and affection.

Answer 15

False

Brothers and other categories of relationships must prove the existence of such ties.

Question 16

Fill in the blank: In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, the presumption of love and affection was extended to _______.

Answer 16

fiancés

This case highlighted the legal recognition of emotional ties in romantic relationships.

Question 17

What must other categories of relationships, such as brothers, demonstrate regarding ties of love and affection?

Answer 17

They must prove the existence of such ties

Unlike parents, spouses, and fiancés, these relationships do not have a presumption of emotional ties.

Question 18

What is required between the claimant and the incident according to McLoughlin v O’Brien?

Answer 18

Proximity in time and space

This case emphasizes the need for the claimant to be close in both time and location to the incident or its aftermath to establish a claim.

Question 19

Fill in the blank: There must be _______ in time and space between the claimant and the incident.

Answer 19

proximity

Question 20

True or False: Proximity in time and space is not necessary for a claimant to establish a claim.

Answer 20

False

Question 21

What must C do to perceive the accident?

Answer 21

C must perceive the accident or its immediate aftermath with his or her own senses

This includes hearing, sight, and touch as established in the case McLoughlin v O’Brien.

Question 22

Who are categorized as primary victims in the context of negligence?

Answer 22

Those at the scene of the accident within the zone of danger created by the defendant’s negligence

This concept is illustrated in the case of Hale v London Underground (1992)

Question 23

What case established the categorization of primary victims?

Answer 23

Hale v London Underground (1992)

This case clarified the definition of primary victims in negligence law.