Its a complete notes for psychiatric injury, structured in way easily understandable and to use as guidance for essays writing or problem question. Its included recent case and update. All you need to know about in psychiatric injury is in one complete note. Further, this area of psychiatric injury...
It is easier for a C to establish that a D owes a duty of • Floodgates; if someone has an accident, the physical circumstances but is still quite restricted. A distinction is
care where the damage suffered is physical injury or effects of that accident wont necessary be limited drawn between primary and secondary victims.
property damage. For psychiatric injuries the rules are (people in the car, pedestrians).
more complex. • Disproportionate liability; imposing liability on one Types of C
person for a small moment of carelessness will be • C who suffer psychiatric illness as a result of having
Consequential psychiatric/emotional injury disproportionate to the wrong, if all those people could been physically injured by the D’s negligence.
presents few problems provided it is foreseeable: it is claim. • C who are put in physical danger, but who in fact
usually recoverable. Thus, where a C is physically injured • The prospect of compensation prevents recovery from suffer only psychiatric illness (primary victims)
and suffers psychiatric harm as a result of this physical the illness (malingering). If you allow claims for • C, who suffer psychiatric illness as a result of
injury, he or she can recover damages for ‘pain and psychiatric injury, if they knew that they will get higher witnessing the death, injury or imperilment of
suffering’. compensation the worse the injury is, they won’t another with whom they have a close relationship
Malcolm v Broadhurst recover quickly so that they could get higher of love and affection (Secondary victims).
husband and wife were in a road traffic accident, compensation. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police Lord
physically injured. Husband had a head injury and as a Oliver made a distinction between primary victims and
result, it led to a personality change (a mental illness), C must prove that he suffers from a recognisable secondary victims and the rules relating to duty of care
the wife had a nervous disposition which lasted a lot psychiatric illness differ for the two.
longer (a form of mental trauma). They claimed McLoughlin, Alcock, Page and White Primary Victim are those immediately involved in an
damages for pain and suffering associated with those All pure psychiatric injury case C must now prove that accident which giving three instances, those involved
mental illnesses. they are suffering from a recognised psychiatric injury immediately as participants in the event, rescuers [today
rather than normal human emotions. stand alone] and Involuntary participants [This was later
Pure’ psychiatric injury restricted to those in the zone of physical danger in Page v
policy reasons for restricting recovery. For many years Hinz v Berry Smith (1996) and White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
one could not bring a claim in negligence for pure Emotions of grief or sorrow are not sufficient to amount (1999)].
psychiatric harm. Victorian Railways Commissioners v to psychiatric injury Secondary victims are those who suffer psychiatric injury
Coultas. This is no longer the case but there are as a result of witnessing another person being killed,
restrictive rules for this type of damage. A number of Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire injured or endangered.
policy reasons have been given for treating psychiatric Nor are feelings of fear, panic or terror
injuries differently: 1. Primary victims
• Evidentiary difficulties (controversy regarding the Depending of whether he is claiming as a primary or Foreseeability of Physical Injury
existence, nature and basis of certain psychiatric secondary victim, satisfy additional requirements Prior to Page - foreseeability of psychiatric illness was
conditions); Victorian Railway Comm v Coultas confirmed that non- required
• Fear of fraudulent claims; it’s easier to fake a recoverability of compensation for PI, however, the tide Page v Smith [1996]
psychiatric injury than it is a physical one. No very was turning and Dulieu v White saw the first successful The C who had pre-existing fatigue syndrome (ME), was
convincing because people could fake physical injuries such claim and were limited to those who feared for involved in minor car accident caused by the D’s
(whiplash). Also, courts could find out if someone is their own safety. negligence. The accident, although caused no physical
faking it. Prior to 1992 all that was required was that the causing injury to the C, caused his condition to become chronic
of the C’s psychiatric illness was foreseeable. The law and permanent. His condition prevented him from
has since developed to allow more wide-ranging retuning to work. He sued the D for psychiatric illness
, and was successful in his claim when the courts held that Donachie v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester c/f
a duty of care was owed to him as personal injury was a Police Group B Plaintiffs v Medical Research Council
foreseeable consequence of the accident. The C was not C as a police officer, had to attach a tagging device on a damages were awarded to Cs who had developed a
required to prove specifically that psychiatric injury to car of a gang, this tagging device had faulty batteries so recognised psychiatric condition from contemplating the
him was foreseeable he had to make 9 trips to the car to try to attach the risk that they would develop a fatal medical condition in
device, he was scared during these instances that the the future as a result of the defendants’ negligence.
Post to Page - D need only have foreseen personal gang would cause him physical injuries. This caused him There was a clear finding that the psychiatric harm was
injury. So long as personal injury was foreseeable it did extreme stress which caused him to have a stroke. Held foreseeable (and had actually been foreseen by the
not matter whether the injury which materialised was because it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendants)
physical/psychiatric. The eggshell skull rule applies carelessness of the employees placing better batteries,
because it was foreseeable that some harm of a relevant would cause him to suffer physical injury. he could claim (3) C suffer PI believe he is the involuntary cause of
kind would be caused, the D was liable for the full extent on psychiatric injury even though he didn’t have a another’s death or injury. Unwilling participants where
of the harm that was actually suffered. physical injury the D’s negligence has ‘put the C in the position of being,
or of thinking that he is about to be or has been, the
Simmons v British Steel Plc Burns v Boots UK Ltd involuntary cause of another's death or injury.’ (People
C’s psychiatric illness need not be the direct C was stood outside boots when a rolling pin fell out of who are made to feel responsible for death or injury of
consequence. If first incurred physical injury and later a window and hit the child she was looking after, she a person.)
sometime developed psychiatric, D can still be liable. suffered a psychiatric injury as a result, even though it TEST: recognised psychiatric injury + foreseeability of
wasn’t foreseeable, she could claim, because she might physical injury + req in Hunter
(1) Classic Primary Victim – C suffer PI because he is in have been hit by the rolling pin. Dooley v Cammell Laird
danger of personal injury/he fears of his own safety. the C suffered shock when he believed that his
TEST: recognised psychiatric injury + foreseeability of Hegarty v EE Caledonia negligence in the management of the crane may have
physical injury The fear that one is in physical danger must be resulted in the injury of his co-workers.
reasonable as opposed to merely genuine.
(2) C suffer PI believed himself to be in danger/fear of Hunter v British Coal Corp
his own safety (but in fact not in actual danger). Fear of future disease such Cs can recover as primary victims provided they
Objective approach is taken as to whether the C is in the Grieves v F T Everard & Sons Ltd (a conjoined appeal can prove that he was directly involved as an actor in
zone of physical danger. with Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd.) the incident. Nb: a C not present at the scene cannot
TEST: recognised psychiatric injury + foreseeability of C suffered from a psychiatric injury (a depressive illness) claim as a primary victim only because he felt
physical injury + 3 req in McFarlane due to his fear that he would develop as asbestos- responsible for the accident when the news of it was
McFarlane v EE Celedonia Ltd related disease in the future. The House of Lords rejected broken to him later
such a C can recover provided he or she is able to prove: his claim as it was not foreseeable that a person of
(i) he or she genuinely feared for his or her ordinary fortitude would suffer a psychiatric injury in Monk v PC Harrington Ltd
safety; these circumstances. Lord Hoffmann believed (at 296) C whose psychiatric injury is caused by a belief that they
(ii) that such fear was not irrational that it would be ‘an unwarranted extension of the were responsible for an accident can fall into any of
(iii) that such fear was reasonably foreseeable principle in Page v Smith to apply it to psychiatric illness three categories:
to a person of ordinary fortitude. caused by apprehension of the possibility of an
unfavourable event which had not actually happened.’
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lawsimple. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.81. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
