sem 2 lesson 5 - nervous shock and occupiers liablity

Question 1

nervous shock is about

Answer 1

making a cliam for psychiatric/non physical harm

Question 2

when is a claim for nervous shock legitimate

Answer 2

for medically diagnosed psychiatric contiion - dont mean grief necessarily

Question 3

primary victims ar those who

Answer 3

physically injured in event caused by defendant and also psychiatrically injured

but in danger of physical injury but get psychiatrically injured instead of physical

( in immediate sphere of danger - dont always have to get hurt)

Question 4

got to take victim as you …

Answer 4

find them - once you harm someone you responsible for physical and psychiaytric condequences of what happen however great/unexpected the extent of that becomes

Question 5

what case do we use to illustrate that a defenfdant must take victim as they find them

Answer 5

PAGE V SMITH 1995

Question 6

PAIGE V SMITH 1995

Answer 6

Man in car accident appearted immediatley dine after but efect of car accident had big impact on his current condition - made it permanent and longstanding

made claim against the driver which was successful as driver can expect to harm someone physically or pysychiatrically that he drove into

Question 7

in paige v smith why didt the fact that he didint immediatey break his leg matter

Answer 7

as once accepted physical/psychiatric harm was forseeable the claim was succesful

Question 8

what is a secondary victim

Answer 8

not in pshycial/not in immediate danger but suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing injury to others

Question 9

describe the requirements of being a secondary victim

Answer 9

very restrictive

Question 10

what case do we use for secondary vicitms

Answer 10

boburhill v young

Question 11

what happened in bourhill v younf and waht do we learn

Answer 11

preggo womn saw crash

difficult to establishh if you could make a cliam if you only saw/expereiced somethig nat a distance that made yusafe in pshyical terms

Question 12

what are the 3 requirements to be a secondary vicitm

Answer 12

diagnosable psyhicatric injury

saw incident ahppening to other you had sufficiently close relationsjip with e.g family friend or members

experiecnced event in time and space you were sufficiently close to expereince it w UNAIDED SENSE

Question 13

why is experienceing event w unaided sesnes immportant - i.e. who did it knock out

Answer 13

people watching it happen from tv/radio

Question 14

which case established the 3 requirements for econdary vicitms

Answer 14

alcock v chieft constable of south yorkshire 1991

Question 15

what happned in alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire 1991 - and what did it establish

Answer 15

hillsborough disaster

lots of people saifd they exprinced psychiatric harm for ths happening

but some people saw it on tv and radio

this case established who a secondatry victim is

Question 16

however somoetimes as a seconadry vicitm it can be enough to see the

Answer 16

aftermath

Question 17

what case shows us as a secondary victim that sometimes it is enough to see the aftermath

Answer 17

mcloughin v o bria

Question 18

what mcloughin v o brian

Answer 18

mum of 4 kids who got into accident

she foes to hospital 2 hours later and is met w a gory scence

later suffers anxierty and diff medically diagnosed conditinos

Question 19

what is significant about the mcloughin v o brian case in relation to seconndary victim

Answer 19

you canbe seconodary vicimt iif se walk into / see imediate aftermath (depending on how gory) if it causes diangsoable osych illness

Question 20

nervous shock may be actionable if suffered as a result of witnessing what

Answer 20

destruction of personal property

Question 21

what case shows us nervous shock can happen if there is the destruction of perosnal property

Answer 21

attia v british gas 1988

Question 22

what happened in attia v british gas

Answer 22

engineer installed boiler, in the process house caught on fire

attia came back to burnign house and sufferd psychiatric injurty as a reuslt of seeing house on flmaes

Question 23

what did court say/agree in terms of property

Answer 23

agree sometimes may be able to claim psycihatic harm arising from witnessing desrtrcution of personal property

but this is harder to apprve

Question 24

in terms of destruction of eprosnal property it must be

Answer 24

sufficiently trauamtic

Question 25

in terms of property - what does sufficiently traumatic mean

Answer 25

reasonable to find a link between psychiatric harm and the witnessinf of peroperty damge in a way tat is not unforseeable or disproportionate

Question 26

it is harder to raie a claim as a

Answer 26

2ndary vicitm

Question 27

why are we only repsonible for people we connected so closely w

Answer 27

System becomes unmangable if we hold each other into account for ero=yone seeing truamatic thigns

ther is suposed ot be a limt

Question 28

here we onyl talm bout

Answer 28

common law duties imposed by state that we don’t volunteer for

i.etort law