Psychiatric injury

Question 1

What is the starting point for psychiatric injury in tort law?

Answer 1

Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas (1888) LR App Cas 222

Question 2

What was the outcome of Mrs. Coultas’s claim in Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas?

Answer 2

The courts refused her claim as she could not prove her condition resulted from negligence due to lack of actual physical injury.

Question 3

What did the case Dulieu v White establish regarding psychiatric injury?

Answer 3

Psychiatric injury could be claimed if the shock arises from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself.

Question 4

What constitutes ‘psychiatric harm’ according to Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v O’Brian?

Answer 4

A positive psychiatric illness, not merely grief or distress.

Question 5

What did Lord Oliver state regarding grief and necessity for caring for loved ones in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police?

Answer 5

These must be considered ordinary incidents of life that must be sustained without compensation.

Question 6

What are some examples of medically recognized conditions that qualify as psychiatric harm?

Answer 6

• PTSD
• Organic depression
• Change of personality
• Pathological grief disorder

Question 7

What is the significance of the distinction between primary and secondary victims?

Answer 7

Primary victims are active participants in the accident, while secondary victims are passive witnesses.

Question 8

What is the definition of primary victims?

Answer 8

Claimants who suffer psychiatric illness due to being physically injured or put in physical danger.

Question 9

What is the definition of secondary victims?

Answer 9

Claimants who are not in the actual area of danger but suffer psychiatric illness from witnessing harm.

Question 10

What must a primary victim show regarding psychiatric harm following Page v Smith?

Answer 10

Reasonable foreseeability of physical injury is sufficient to establish a duty regarding psychiatric injury.

Question 11

What did Grieves v FT Everard & Sons Ltd establish about future harm and psychiatric injury?

Answer 11

Anxiety about future harm is insufficient for a successful claim as a primary victim.

Question 12

What is the legal status of a mother as a primary victim according to YAH v Medway NHS Trust Foundation Trust?

Answer 12

A mother remains a primary victim if she suffers personal injury due to negligence occurring before her baby is born.

Question 13

In Wild v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, why was Mr. Wild’s claim dismissed?

Answer 13

He did not meet the legal requirements for secondary victims as he only witnessed the aftermath.

Question 14

What is a requirement for secondary victims to claim damages for psychological harm?

Answer 14

The reaction must be within the ordinary emotional response of a reasonable person.

Question 15

What are the three control mechanisms established in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire?

Answer 15

• Close ties of love and affection
• Diagnosed psychiatric illness
• Proximity to the accident

Question 16

What did the Alcock case narrow the presumption of close ties of love and affection to?

Answer 16

• Husband and wife
• Parent and child

Question 17

What is the significance of the term ‘sudden shock’ in relation to secondary victims?

Answer 17

The harm must result from a sudden, shocking event to qualify for a claim.

Question 18

What is the duty owed to primary victims regarding psychiatric harm?

Answer 18

They are owed a duty of care if placed at a foreseeable risk of physical injury.

Question 19

Fill in the blank: A primary victim is someone who suffers psychiatric illness due to being _______.

Answer 19

[physically injured or put in physical danger]

Question 20

True or False: Secondary victims must be in the actual area of danger to claim damages.

Answer 20

False

Question 21

What is the Alcock criteria control mechanism?

Answer 21

The Alcock criteria control mechanism includes:
* Diagnosed psychiatric illness
* Single shocking event
* Reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric harm
* Close ties of love and affection with the immediate victim
* Proximity to the accident
* Direct perception by sight or hearing

This framework is used to assess claims for psychiatric harm.

Question 22

True or False: Secondary victims are owed a duty of care unless a sudden, shocking event causes pure psychiatric harm.

Answer 22

True

Secondary victims must experience a sudden shock to claim damages.

Question 23

What distinguishes primary victims from secondary victims in psychiatric injury claims?

Answer 23

Primary victims can claim for psychiatric harm without the requirement of sudden shock; secondary victims must experience sudden shock.

This distinction is crucial in determining eligibility for claims.

Question 24

In YAH v Medway NHS Foundation Trust, could the claimant claim as a primary victim?

Answer 24

Yes, the mother could be considered a primary victim before and after the birth.

The case involved psychiatric harm resulting from the negligent birth of her daughter.

Question 25

What constitutes 'pure psychiatric harm'?

Answer 25

Pure psychiatric harm results from a shock suffered by the claimant from either direct involvement in a dangerous situation or witnessing harm to others. ## Footnote The shock must be sudden and horrifying.

Question 26

Fill in the blank: Sudden shock must be a _______ by sight or sound of a horrifying event.

Answer 26

sudden appreciation ## Footnote This concept was emphasized in the Alcock case.

Question 27

What was the outcome in Sion v Hampstead Health Authority regarding secondary victims?

Answer 27

The court ruled against the secondary victim due to lack of immediate shock; events unfolded over time. ## Footnote The father watched his son’s health deteriorate gradually.

Question 28

In Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust, how did the courts view the 36 hours before the child's death?

Answer 28

It was classified as a single horrifying event. ## Footnote The mother was able to claim damages for psychiatric harm.

Question 29

What is the requirement for reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric harm?

Answer 29

Claimants must show it was reasonably foreseeable that a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer psychiatric harm from witnessing the event. ## Footnote This principle was established in Bourhill v Young.

Question 30

True or False: Close ties of love and affection are presumed between work colleagues.

Answer 30

False ## Footnote Close ties are generally presumed between spouses and parents and children, not work colleagues.

Question 31

What is required to prove close ties of love and affection in relationships beyond immediate family?

Answer 31

The claimant must usually prove that close ties exist. ## Footnote This was highlighted in McCarthy v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.

Question 32

What did the Law Commission Report suggest regarding categories of claimants for psychiatric injuries?

Answer 32

It suggested extending categories to include fiancés, siblings, and cohabitants based on relationship quality rather than familial ties. ## Footnote The recommendations were not accepted.

Question 33

What does proximity in time and space require for a claimant?

Answer 33

The claimant must be near the event both physically and temporally, witnessing it or its immediate aftermath. ## Footnote This principle was clarified in Alcock.

Question 34

In McLoughlin v O’Brian, how did the court expand the definition of proximity?

Answer 34

The court allowed claims for those who witnessed the immediate aftermath of an accident, even if they did not see the accident itself. ## Footnote This case set precedents prior to Alcock.

Question 35

What was the ruling in Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd regarding secondary victims?

Answer 35

To qualify as a secondary victim, the claimant must witness the original accident or its immediate aftermath. ## Footnote The court ruled against claims based on events occurring long after the initial incident.

Question 36

Who is considered a rescuer in the context of psychiatric injury claims?

Answer 36

A rescuer is someone who attempts to help those in danger and may qualify as a primary victim if in physical danger. ## Footnote Their claims depend on satisfying relevant conditions.

Question 37

What was established in Ogwo v Taylor regarding firefighters and psychiatric injuries?

Answer 37

Firefighters can claim for psychiatric injuries resulting from their job when responding to negligently caused incidents. ## Footnote The courts recognized these injuries as foreseeable.

Question 38

What is the principle regarding firefighters claiming injury?

Answer 38

Firefighters can claim injury as it is a foreseeable consequence of negligently starting a fire. ## Footnote The courts held that there was no principle preventing such claims.

Question 39

What defines a 'rescuer' in legal terms?

Answer 39

A person who suffers from psychiatric illness caused by rescuing victims and places themselves in physical danger. ## Footnote This definition is important for understanding claims related to psychiatric injuries.

Question 40

What was the outcome of Baker v TE Hopkins?

Answer 40

The court held that the claimant’s husband had not consented to the harm and his actions were not unreasonable. ## Footnote It was foreseeable that someone would go to rescue a person in danger.

Question 41

What was significant about Chadwick v British Railways Board?

Answer 41

The court recognized a duty of care extended to those induced to go to the rescue of those in danger. ## Footnote The claimant suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing a tragic event.

Question 42

What restriction did White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police impose on rescuer claims?

Answer 42

Rescuers must have been in physical danger as a result of the defendant’s negligence. ## Footnote This case limited the scope for claims by rescuers.

Question 43

What findings were made regarding emergency workers at Hillsborough?

Answer 43

Emergency workers were not considered primary victims and failed to meet criteria for secondary victims. ## Footnote They were not in immediate physical danger and did not have close ties of affection.

Question 44

What was the ruling regarding unwitting participants contributing to harm?

Answer 44

They may be viewed as akin to primary victims if they unknowingly placed others in harm's way. ## Footnote This was established in W v Essex County Council.

Question 45

What happened in Dooley v Cammell Laird?

Answer 45

The court dismissed the claim for psychiatric injury as the employer did not owe a duty of care for nervous injury. ## Footnote The claimant suffered from a pre-existing condition aggravated by the incident.

Question 46

What was the outcome of Hunter v British Coal Corp?

Answer 46

The court rejected the claim due to lack of physical and temporal proximity to the incident. ## Footnote The claimant was not present at the scene when the fatal accident occurred.

Question 47

What must a claimant demonstrate to bring a claim for psychiatric illness?

Answer 47

The claimant must have suffered from a diagnosed psychiatric illness. ## Footnote Mental distress alone is insufficient for a claim.

Question 48

What constitutes 'nervous shock'?

Answer 48

Nervous shock is caused by the sudden appreciation of a horrific event such as death or serious injury. ## Footnote This is crucial for understanding claims related to psychiatric harm.

Question 49

How can a claimant qualify as a primary victim?

Answer 49

By being in physical danger during the incident. ## Footnote This allows them to claim for psychiatric injury.

Question 50

What are the Alcock criteria for secondary victims?

Answer 50

Witnessing death or injury while meeting specific criteria such as proximity and relationship to the victim. ## Footnote These criteria are essential for claims by secondary victims.

Question 51

What can a claimant argue if they believe they are liable for a death?

Answer 51

They can claim for psychiatric injury if they were sufficiently proximate to the incident. ## Footnote This adds another layer to claims involving perceived liability.