Tort - Pure economic loss + psychiatric harm Flashcards
(16 cards)
Which case authority gave guidelines for the criteria to apply when determining whether the defendant assumed responsibility for the correctness of their statement to the claimant? What were these guidelines?
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and others.
Guidelines: the defendant communicated advice to the claimant or knew it would be; the defendant knew the purpose for which the claimant would use the advice; the defendant knew or reasonably believed the claimant would rely on the advice; and the claimant acted on the advice to their detriment.
If a claimant suffers pure economic loss as a result of relying on a negligent statement, and the statement contained a disclaimer: ‘this advice is provided without responsibility’, which statute or statutes might the disclaimer be subject to?
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 or the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Alcock criteria
1️⃣ Foreseeability: Normal person would suffer psychiatric harm.
2️⃣ Proximity of relationship: Close ties of love and affection.
3️⃣ Proximity in time and space: Present at event/immediate aftermath.
A witness sees the immediate aftermath of a car accident and sees someone screaming in pain and covered in blood. As a result, the witness develops post-traumatic stress disorder. Which of the following is correct?
The witness is a secondary victim.
To be recoverable, the psychiatric harm suffered by the claimant must be?
Medically recognised or a shock-induced physical condition
What is the duty test for primary victims?
Duty exists if physical harm was foreseeable, even if psychiatric harm wasn’t.
For which relationships is there a rebuttable presumption of close ties and love and affection?
Parent/child, husband/wife, engaged couples.
NOT for grandparent/granchild or siblings
Who are secondary victims in psychiatric harm cases?
Witnesses who suffer harm through seeing/hearing the event but are not in physical danger
How are rescuers treated in psychiatric harm cases?
As primary victims if in danger (Chadwick); as secondary if merely witnesses (White).
What must a secondary victim show for foreseeability?
That a person of ordinary fortitude in the same circumstances might suffer psychiatric harm.
Key principles from Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024]?
No duty of care in “medical crisis” cases; doctors owe no duty to protect family from trauma of witnessing illness/death.
Distinguish accidents (sudden external events) from medical crises (gradual deterioration).
Must satisfy Alcock criteria: 1) close ties of love/affection, 2) proximity in time/space, 3) harm from direct perception of accident/immediate aftermath.
Sudden shock not required; gradual realisation can suffice.
No need for accident to be horrifying, but harm must be reasonably foreseeable.
Gap in time between breach and accident doesn’t bar claim, but proximity in time/space to accident is crucial.
Conclusion: medical crises not analogous to accidents, so limited secondary victim claims in medical negligence.
What relationships can give rise to an assumption of responsibility for psychiatric harm?
Occupational stress claim – employer/employee relationship; doctor/patient; police/informant.
What must an employer do in an occupational stress claim?
Monitor workload, respond to clear signs of stress, consider business size/resources, and take reasonable steps.
What key principles were established in Barber v Somerset CC (2004)?
1) Foreseeability of harm; 2) Foreseeability depends on workload, signs of stress, and resources; 3) Once threshold crossed, personal resilience is irrelevant.
Does the assumption of responsibility require a sudden accident?
No, duty arises from relationship and reliance, not an accident.
Can a person who witnesses a traumatic event claim as a secondary victim if they’re not closely connected to the victim?
No. They must have close ties of love and affection with the primary victim.
