Lecture notes
Psychiatric Harm
- Module
- Law with Criminology
- Institution
- University Of Brighton (UoB)
Lecture notes on psychiatric harm
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Tort LectureWeek 6
SPECIAL DUTY PROBLEMS: PSYCHIATRIC INJURY
➔ duty concept draws a distinction between physical harm to the person and psychiatric injury
➔ recoverable only under exceptional circumstances
➔ severe restrictions on the scope of liability
➔ psychiatric injury is not yet placed on a par with bodily injury
DEFINING PSYCHIATRIC INJURY
➔ Not mere grief or emotional distress
➔ Hinz v Berry [1970]
◆ Lord Denning, ‘in English law no damages are awarded for grief or sorrow caused by a
person’s death.’
➔ Assault on the mind or senses
➔ White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999]
◆ Lord Steyn
● ‘the law cannot provide compensation for all emotional suffering even if it is
acute and truly debilitating’
➔ Question now is one of degree rather than type of harm
➔ Can now be recognised through expert testimony
➔ pure psychiatric injury is recoverable so long as it is a recognised psychiatric illness
PRIMARY OR SECONDARY VICTIMS
➔ Typically claims for Psychiatric Harm are split into two categories
➔ Different rules apply to each
➔ Primary victims suffer injury because of what happened to them
➔ Secondary victims suffer injury because of seeing something that has happened to someone
else
PRIMARY VICTIMS
➔ Dulieu v White [1901]
◆ primary victims established that claimant could recover damages for psychiatric injury
which stem from actual physical injury or from a reasonable apprehension of danger to
someone’s own safety
➔ Page v. Smith [1996]
◆ claimants were in a minor road traffic accident, caused by defendant’s negligence
◆ no physical injury but triggered recurrence of claimant’s ME, causing severe fatigue.
Was in remission at the time of the accident
◆ majority of the HoL allowed an appeal
◆ in his leading opinion, Lord Lloyd held that where it is reasonably foreseeable that the
defendant’s negligence may cause physical harm to the claimant, and as such is a
primary victim, they could also recover for any psychiatric harm they suffered
◆ claimant was in the zone of danger
➔ Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co; Grieves v. FT Everard and Sons [2007]
◆ claimant had been exposed to asbestos by the defendants
◆ became worried about developing an asbestos-related disease
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 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 athenag. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £2.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67474 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