Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
68 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
how is psychiatric harm defined |
an assault on an individuals mind or senses rather than a physical impact |
|
|
how have policy issues changed approaches to psychiatric injuries |
focus shift away from the way the harm is caused to the type of harm suffered |
|
|
under what conditions can C recover for psychiatric harm |
so long as it is a recognised psychiatric illness |
|
|
what case says you cant recover for grief anxiety and distress |
Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police |
|
|
what case says a house owner was able to recover for psychiatric harm caused by witnessing a fire which extensively damaged his home |
Attia v British Gas |
|
|
what case was a brother not able to claim for witnessing his sibling being crushed to death |
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police |
|
|
case where a mother was able to claim for seeing her family in hospital a few hours after a tragic road accident |
McLoughlin v O’Brian |
|
|
what case was a father not able to claim for watching his son slowly die over 14 days because of medical negligence |
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority |
|
|
Social worker that was able to claim for a nervous breakdown because of a traumatic caseload |
Walker v Northumberland County Council |
|
|
who says theres a web of rules spun around psychiatric harm |
Conaghan & Mansell |
|
|
whatre the 2 kinds of victims for psychiatric harm |
primary and secondary victims |
|
|
whats one of the limitations placed on claims for psychiatric harm following the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster |
relationship of sufficient proximity |
|
|
who restricted the class of claimants falling under the primary victim category by limiting it to those withing the range of foreseeable phsycial danger |
Lord Lloyd in Page v Smith |
|
|
what case says that claimants can recover for psychiatric injury stemming from actual physical injury or from a reasonable fear or apprehension of danger to their physical safety |
Dulieu v White |
|
|
what case says that where it is reasonably foreseeable that D’s negligence may cause physical harm to C they can also recover for the psychiatric harm they suffer |
Page v Smith |
|
|
why is Page v Smith often criticised |
because it restricts a primary victim to someone that is necessarily within the zone of physical danger |
|
|
what was considered in Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co |
whether Lord Lloyd intended to limit the primary victim category to claimants who wrte in physical danger |
|
|
what happened in Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co |
developed harmless pleural plaques because of asbestos exposure but his fear that it might develop into something more serious made him clinicaly depressed |
|
|
what was held in Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co |
his claim failed fear and distress only counts if its regarding an accident caused by D’s negligence or its immediate aftermath cant apprehend an unfavourable event that hasn’t actually happened |
|
|
what is the first case for secondary victims |
Hambrook v Stokes Bros |
|
|
what are recovery cases limited by for secondary victims |
a number of policy orientated control mechanisms |
|
|
what must psychiatric injury suffered be for secondary victims |
reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude in the same circumstances |
|
|
from which case derived the notion of ordinary phlegm or fortitude |
Bourhill v Young |
|
|
what happened in Bourhill v Young |
preggo woman witnesses motorbike accident has miscarriage |
|
|
what is held in Bourhill v Young |
claim rejected cuz injuries werent foreseeable |
|
|
once psychological harm is foreseeable will D be liable even if a greater vulnerability or susceptibility means the claimant suffers greater psychiatric harm |
under the egg shell or thin skull rule, yes |
|
|
what case says that once psychiatric harm is foreseeable D will be liable even if a particular vulnerability makes them more susceptible to psychological harm |
Brice v Brown |
|
|
what is McLoughlin v O’Brian treated as |
the modern approach to secondary victims |
|
|
what happened in McLoughlin v O’Brian |
C witnesses family a few hours later in a hospital after they were involved in a srs car crash |
|
|
what was held in McLoughlin v O’Brian |
claim allowed because she came upon the immediate aftermath |
|
|
are judges more generous today or before to grant damages to secondary victims of psychiatric harm |
back then they were more generous |
|
|
why weren’t claimants able to recover as secondary victims in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police |
lack of proximity between C and the police |
|
|
what kind of relationship must there be between C and victim |
close tie of love and affection |
|
|
who comes under close tie of love and affection |
spouses parents children |
|
|
does this mean siblings and other relative cant claim |
no, they would have to prove such ties existed tho |
|
|
what did the Alcock case say about mere bystanders being able to recover as secondary victims |
they can recover if the circumstances were particularly horrific |
|
|
what is meant by proximity |
physical and temporal propinquity |
|
|
what happened in Taylor v A Novo |
C’s mother died 3 weeks after being negligently injured at work C developed PTSD |
|
|
what was held in Taylor v A Novo |
claim unsuccessfull because she wasnt there when the accident happened or during its immediate aftermath |
|
|
which case demonstrates a more restrictive approach to the idea of proximity and immediate aftermath |
Berisha v Stone Superstore partner injured at work on life support for 36 hours life support removed “nothing inherently unusual about tragedies” |
|
|
what case shows that psychiatric harm must be sustained as a result of shock rather than a continuous process of dealing with events |
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority |
|
|
what case shows the courts resisting the idea of psychiatric harm needing to be sustained by shock by allowing the 36 hours before a childs death to qualify as a single horrifying event |
North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters |
|
|
however why is North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters not good to rely on |
the only reported case involving the consequence of observers in a hospital setting of clinical negligence where C was successful |
|
|
what happened in Ronayne |
C’s wife suffered a series of complications at hospital C suffered psychiatric injury as a result of shock of his wife’s deterioration over 36 hrs |
|
|
what was held by the court in Ronayne |
claim unsuccessful may have been alarming and distressing but its not exceptional nor horrifying |
|
|
what case says theres no liability to a secondary victim who is merely told about the shocking event by a third party |
Alcock |
|
|
who says you may be able to bring a successful claim if you’re told about a shocking event by a third party if it is clear the victim has died |
Lord Ackner |
|
|
how did Lord Oliver in Alcock envisage ‘primary victims’ as being |
a broad range which includes Rescuers |
|
|
how has the narrowing of ‘primary victims’ in Page affected who falls under it |
rescuers can only recover if they were also at risk of physical injury |
|
|
what case says that defendants have been held to owe a duty of care not just to those they initially endanger but also those that try and rescue them |
Ogwo v Taylor |
|
|
what case shows rescuers claiming damages for psychiatric harm |
Chadwick v British Railways Board |
|
|
what is White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police about |
claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric harm as a result of their work during the stadium disaster |
|
|
what was held in White |
the courts inclination to protect rescuers was trumped by their inclination to limit recovery for pure psychiatric harm |
|
|
from what case shows that involuntary participants or unwitting agent can claim damages for psychiatric injury |
Dooley v Cammell Laird |
|
|
what was held in Monk v PC Harrington |
claim failed because there was no reasonable belief that he was responsible for his co-workers death |
|
|
what was made clear in Alcock |
that theres no liability for a secondary victim who doesnt witness the accident or its immediate aftermath |
|
|
what case says that where there is false/distressing news communicated with the intention to shock or harm C the teller of the falsehood is liable for any physical/psychiatric damage |
Wilkinson v Downton |
|
|
what case says where distressing news is negligently communicated you can also be held liable for causing a secondary victim psychiatric harm |
Farrell v Avon Health Authority |
|
|
what policy reasons does Lord Oliver note as to why you cant claim psychiatric injury as a secondary victim if you witness someone injuring themselves |
person ought be free to choose to incur personal risks w/o exposing themselves to liability for others |
|
|
what case is an example of the court refusing to compensate a claimant for witnessing his sons injuries in a car crash where he was negligently driving |
Greatorex v Greatorex |
|
|
what case is an example of employer employee relationships where theres an assumption of responsibility |
Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis |
|
|
what case is an example of bookmaker and gambler relationships where theres an assumption of responsibility |
Calvert v William Hill Credit |
|
|
what case is an example of l police and police informant relationships where theres an assumption of responsibility |
Swimney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police |
|
|
what case is an example of doctor and patient relationships where theres an assumption of responsibility |
AB v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust |
|
|
what case is an example of prison officer and prisoners relationships where theres an assumption of responsibility |
Butchart v Home Office |
|
|
in what case was an employer found liable for their employees work-related stress |
Walker v Northumberland County Council |
|
|
what happened in Walker v Northumberland county council |
had 2 breakdowns was promised additional support after 1st breakdown which never materialised 1st breakdown no breach 2nd was reasonably foreseeable |
|
|
what was confirmed in Hatton v Sutherland |
duty owed in respect of psychiatric injury caused by stress at work |
