100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Negligence notes £7.49   Add to cart

Lecture notes

Negligence notes

 10 views  0 purchase

Covering some parts of the law of negligence

Preview 2 out of 5  pages

  • October 28, 2021
  • 5
  • 2020/2021
  • Lecture notes
  • N/a
  • Negligence
book image

Book Title:

Author(s):

  • Edition:
  • ISBN:
  • Edition:
All documents for this subject (5)
avatar-seller
littlelad1314
If someone suffers psych harm as result of property damage, unproblematic
 Psych harm following on from other physical damage
 Authority - Tier v British Gas
 Lady walking down street - sees house of fire
 British gas doing work on her house
 Suffers psych harm - claimed duty of care


Psych harm and nothing else
 Not limited by laws of inertia- e.g. debris can only fly so far from explosion


Possibility of making claims for psych harm has been possible for a while
 Dulieu v White (1901) - first case recognized
 Horse-drawn carriage crashed into bar - barmaid suffered psych harm
 Nervous shock - able to claim tort of negligence



Concerns:
 Liability for disproportionate amount of damages
 Ultra Morris corporation v Touche (1931)
 Concern about liability in indeterminate amount for indeterminate time to
indeterminate class of people
 Opening floodgate to claims
 Hillsborough disaster - worry that there could be large number of claims from
one-off event
 If floodgate of claims for one type of event/claimant, pressure on system
 Other claims may not get fair hearing
 Concern for fraud
 Psych harm is easier to fake than physical harm
 Over-deterrence
 If liability for psych harm that can be caused by events, may deter D from
putting on these events


Preconditions to whether there should be duty of care owed to psych harm
 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police


Whether C suffers from recognized psych illness
 Law Commission looked at liability for psych harm in 1998
 Did not think medical knowledge had advanced enough for complete
codification of liability for psych illness to be sensible option
 Usually determined by expert evidence
 Usually refer to DSM american diagnostic + statistical manual of mental
disorders
 Or ICD10 - national statistical classification of mental + behavioural disorders
 Classify more than 500? Types of psych injuries
 E.g.

,  Pathological unresolved mourning - is injury
 But severe bereavement reaction - not injury
 Mere distress - not injury
Test of reasonable foreseeability
 Is it reasonably foreseeable that someone might suffer psych harm due to injury/the fear
of injury to another person
 Hambro Construction 1925
 Mother saw lorry going to where she left children
 Fearing they were killed - didn't see them be hit
 Later died partly due to build-up of stress over time
 Borrel v Young 1943
 C heard collision involving motorcyclist + other vehicle
 No connection to person
 Suffered psych harm - miscarriage
 Not entitled to claim - not reasonably foreseeable someone would
suffer from hearing accident
 Depends on whether C is primary/secondary victim
 Whether psych harm has arisen in context of work


Test of foreseeability depends on distinction:


Acute psych harm = caused by one-off event


Primary victim


C is directly involved as participant
In danger zone -
 Donachie v CC Manchester Police
 C is police officer trying to put tracking device under criminal's car
 Has to go back many times to fit device as batteries keep failing
 Fear for life each time - maybe heart attack?
 Employer - failed to provide with him with safe system of work
 Young v Charles Church (1997)
 C hands colleague scaffolding pole
 Colleague touches live electricity wire, electrocuted + dies
 Other colleague burnt
 C spectator D - caused psych harm
 But included in danger zone as sufficiently close
 Criticism that this was wrongly interpreted
 Fear must be real
 Must be objectively in danger zone/reasonably fear you are in danger zone
 McFarlane v EE Caledonia [1994] 2 All ER 1
 C was in support vessel watching oil rig on fire
 Court didn't accept he was actually in fear

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

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 littlelad1314. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

67232 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£7.49
  • (0)
  Add to cart