Essay
LAW - UNIT 8 - P2 M2
- Vak
- Instelling
Essay of 4 pages for the course Unit 8 - Aspects of the Law of Tort at PEARSON (USE AS YOU WISH.)
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 1 van de 4 pagina's
Voorbeeld 1 van de 4 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
1 beoordeling
Door: christabeladeyemi • 2 jaar geleden
Verkoper
Volgen
AWAIS123
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Muhammed AwaisP2 M2 – Psychiatric Harm
The courts have said that there must be proof of an actual, recognised psychiatric condition. Psychiatric harm is
very difficult to determine and for that reason many people have tried to fake that they had the harm. To claim
for psychiatric injury there has to be a long term psychiatric injury which is recognised psychiatric injury. An
example of a psychiatric injury is post-traumatic stress disorder, clinical depression, claustrophobia and
personality change. On the other hand an example of a not recognised psychiatric illness is insomnia,
nightmares and migraines. For example in the case of Reilly V Merseyside HA, in this case two grandparents
were going to a hospital to see their new born grandson. But they were trapped in a lift which was overcrowded.
They remained in the lift for one hour and twenty minutes. At the time of the incident Mr Riley who was 61 had
an existing illness which was angina, then Mrs riley who was 68 also had an existing illness which was
claustrophobia. In the lift both Mr and Mrs riley had suffered from claustrophobia. The symptoms which they
suffered was becoming hot and sweaty, difficulty in breathing and dizziness, they both were in the state of
collapsing due to the pressure. Due to this they both had nightmares and found it hard to sleep for a few weeks.
The trial judge had allowed them to pass as they had no hope of them to recover. But the hospital had asked for
an appeal which was successful as the appeal judge said that there needed to be a real psychiatric injury and
Physical symptoms of fear and panic such as sweating and breathing difficulties was not real psychiatric injury.
In the case of Vernon V Bosley, in this case the claimant’s two daughters were in a car with their nanny and the
car had crashed into the ocean. The claimant was called to the scene and he had arrived when the firemen were
trying to save the children from drowning. But the attempt to save them was not successful the claimant had to
watch his two children die. The claimant went to court after his business had failed and so did his marriage and
said that it had failed due to being an eye witness of the failed rescue attempt. The defendant argued that it was
the shortcomings of the claimant that his business and marriage had failed. The court of appeal said that he was
suffering from nervous shock which was a medically recognised illness and for that reason damages must be
paid.
In the case of Sabba, both Sabba’s Aunt Pat and Oliver the police officer both had suffered from anxiety
and depression which is a long term psychiatric injury. Therefore the original requirement is met and
they both can start a claim for Psychiatric injury.
Another fear the court has that doing so may open the floodgates of litigation. Therefore, the law has changed,
there are now 3 requirements which have been put forward to make it easier for judges to make decisions. The 3
types of people which can bring a case to court about psychiatric harm is firstly primary victims, secondly
secondary victims and then rescuers. A primary victim would be someone who had suffered the psychiatric
harm due to the safety of themselves. Secondary victim is someone who suffers psychiatric harm due to them
witnessing harm to another person and rescuers is someone who will suffer psychiatric harm when they come to
rescue someone.
In the case of Sabba, there are primary victims and also there are secondary victims. The primary victim
was Oliver the police officer as he had gone inside to help Sabba who was stuck in the rubble. Therefore
he is a primary victim. On the other hand Sabba’s Aunt Pat is a secondary victim as she wasn’t at the
place when the injury had occurred to Sabba, but she had feared for the life of Sabba therefore she is a
secondary victim.
Primary victims are people who have suffered the psychiatric harm due to the result of an injury being directly
linked to them. The people can be affected by fearing for their own safety. In basic terms someone who was in
harm’s way. For example, in the case of Dulia V White was the first classified case where people were fearful
for their own safety. In this case the claimant had suffered from psychiatric injury when a horse which was in a
van was driven into a public house where the victim was working. Kennedy LJ had said that it wasn’t needed
for someone to have suffered psychiatric harm by impact, as they said that it was enough to have psychiatric
harm when one feels the fear of immediate injury. This was later changed in the case of Page V Smith where the
claimant was involved in a car crash which was caused by negligent driving by the defendant. The person
wasn’t injured in the crash but did suffer some psychiatric harm later. The court then said that primary victims
are also those people which are in the zone of physical danger. There not need to be feared for their safety.
Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:
Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews
Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!
In een paar klikken geregeld
Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.
Direct to-the-point
Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper AWAIS123. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor $6.86. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 72056 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen
Laatst bekeken door jou
Samenvatting ·
AdvStatIISummary
