Pyshciatric harm

• What is psychiatric harm an extension of?


  Negligence
• Why did the courts try to restrict the number of claims for psychiatric injury after the Hillsborough disaster?


  To limit the 'floodgates' of claims and ensure only deserving individuals obtain compensation
• What could have been the consequence if the courts allowed claims from anyone who witnessed shocking events on TV?


  It could have set a precedent for unlimited claims from anyone who witnessed anything shocking
• What is another term for psychiatric injury?


  Nervous shock
• What constitutes psychiatric injury?


  A severe long-term mental injury that is more than just shock or grief
• Name three types of psychiatric injuries.


  Depression, anxiety, PTSD
• What was the outcome of Reilly v Merseyside Health Authority (1994)?


  The claim of psychiatric harm was rejected by the Court of Appeal
• What is required for a claim of psychiatric harm to be valid according to Reilly v Merseyside Health Authority?


  There must be a recognized psychiatric condition
• What distinguishes primary victims from secondary victims?


  Primary victims are injured or fear injury, while secondary victims witness the incident
• What was the outcome of Page v Smith (1996)?


  The defendant was liable for the full extent of the claimant's injuries
• Why was C considered a primary victim in Page v Smith?


  Because C was directly involved in the incident and suffered nervous shock
• What must primary victims demonstrate regarding foreseeability of psychiatric harm?


  Psychiatric harm does not need to be foreseeable if some physical harm is foreseeable
• What was the outcome of Donachie v CC of Greater Manchester Police (2004)?


  The claimant won his claim
• Why was C considered a primary victim in Donachie v CC of Greater Manchester Police?


  C feared for his safety, which led to physical injury
• What are the criteria for someone to claim as a primary victim when acting as a rescuer?


  • Engage in rescue activities
  • Put themselves in danger
  • Fear for their own safety
• What was the outcome of Chadwick v BRB (1967)?


  The claimant was entitled to claim psychiatric harm as a primary victim
• What did the House of Lords determine in White v CC of South Yorkshire (1998) regarding primary victims?


  Primary victims must fear for their own safety to claim psychiatric harm
• What defines a secondary victim?


  A secondary victim is someone who witnesses the incident or its aftermath without being in personal danger
• What was the significance of the Alcock case regarding secondary victims?


  It established strict rules for who qualifies as a secondary victim
• What are the Alcock criteria for secondary victims?


  • Proximity of relationship
  • Proximity in time and space
  • Perception of the incident with own senses
  • Reasonably foreseeable psychiatric harm
• What was the outcome of Bourhill v Young (1943)?


  The claimant was unable to claim due to insufficient proximity
• What was the outcome of Robertson & Rough v Forth Road Bridge regarding proximity?


  The claimants lost their claim due to insufficient proximity of relationship
• What was the outcome of Attia v British Gas (1988)?


  The claimant's claim succeeded as she was within the area of impact
• What is required for proximity of time and space for secondary victims?


  • Close proximity to the accident in time and space
  • Direct sight or hearing of the accident is not required
  • Immediate aftermath can also establish proximity
• What was the outcome of McLoughlin v O'Brian (1982)?


  The claimant won her claim due to sufficient proximity
• What was the significance of Galli-Atkinson v Seghal (2003) regarding immediate aftermath?


  The claim succeeded because the claimant saw the immediate aftermath of her daughter's accident
• What was the outcome of Taylor v A Novo (2013)?


  The claimant was unsuccessful due to insufficient proximity
• What was the outcome of Berisha v Stone Superstone Ltd (2014)?


  The claimant's claim was unsuccessful due to lack of proximity
• What is required for a secondary victim to perceive the incident?


  • Must be present at the scene or immediate aftermath
  • Hearing about the incident through media is insufficient
• What must a secondary victim prove regarding reasonable foresight of psychiatric injury?


  The psychiatric injury must be reasonably foreseeable to a person of reasonable fortitude
• What does the 'thin skull' rule imply for secondary victims?


  If a secondary victim has a 'thin skull', they can claim for the full extent of their injuries