pshyciatric harm

• What term is used interchangeably with psychological harm in the context of negligence?

  Psychiatric injury
• Why must claimants show medical evidence for psychiatric injury?

  To prove a recognized psychiatric illness
• What is another term for psychiatric injury?

  Nervous shock
• Why are courts reluctant to allow claims for psychiatric harm?

  Due to a restrictive approach on duty of care
• What are the three elements of negligence that must be proven?

  Duty of care, breach, and causation
• What is required for a recognized psychiatric injury?

  A medically verified psychiatric illness
• What is the most common psychiatric injury resulting from a shocking event?

  PTSD
• Why was the claim in Riley v. Mel's Medicine Health Authority unsuccessful?

  It was not an identifiable psychiatric condition
• What are the two types of victims in psychiatric injury claims?

  Primary and secondary victims
• Why is there a historical unwillingness to treat mental illnesses seriously in court?

  Due to difficulty in diagnosis and potential for fraudulent claims
• In which case was a claim allowed due to the claimant fearing for their own safety?

  Dulieu v. White
• Why was the claim in Hambrook v. Stokes allowed?

  The claimant feared for the safety of her children
• In which case did the claimant miscarry due to shock from witnessing an accident?

  Bourhill v. Young
• Why was the claim in Bourhill v. Young unsuccessful?

  There was no proximity of relationship between the claimant and the motorcyclist
• What two principles were established in McLoughlin v. O'Brian?

  Close ties of love and affection, and shock at the scene or immediate aftermath
• Why was the claim in Vernon v. Bosley successful?

  The claimant suffered pathological grief and trauma from witnessing the event
• What is the key characteristic of a primary victim in psychiatric injury claims?

  They are directly involved in the accident or in the zone of danger
• Why can a rescuer be considered a primary victim?

  They put themselves in the zone of danger
• In which case did the claimant suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by a minor car accident?

  Page v. Smith
• Why was the claim in Page v. Smith successful?

  Some kind of personal injury was foreseeable
• In which case did a police officer suffer psychiatric damage due to a defective tracking device?

  Donoghue v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
• Why was the claim in White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police unsuccessful?

  The claimants did not fear for their own safety
• In which case did the claimant suffer mental injuries after rescuing passengers from a train crash?

  Chadwick v. British Rail
• Why was the claim in Chadwick v. British Rail successful?

  The claimant was considered a primary victim at risk to himself
• In which case did a firefighter successfully claim for PTSD after a rescue attempt?

  Hale v. London Underground
• Why can rescuers who do not put themselves in physical danger not claim as primary victims?

  They are considered secondary victims
• What are the three rules from Alcock that secondary victims must satisfy?

  Close ties of love and affection, proximity in time and space, and sudden shock
• Why is the requirement for sudden shock important for secondary victims?

  To limit the scope of claims to immediate reactions
• What is the key case that established the rules for secondary victims?

  Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
• Why did the House of Lords in Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police limit liability for secondary victims?

  To prevent unlimited liability and potential floodgates of claims
• What are the key differences between primary and secondary victims in psychiatric injury claims?

  • Primary victims: Directly involved in the accident or in the zone of danger
  • Secondary victims: Witness the event or its aftermath, not in physical danger
  • Primary victims can claim even if psychiatric harm was not foreseeable
  • Secondary victims must satisfy Alcock's rules (close ties, proximity, sudden shock)
• What are the main challenges in diagnosing psychiatric injury?

  • Difficulty in objectively assessing mental state
  • Potential for fraudulent claims
  • Historical unwillingness to treat mental illnesses seriously
  • Complexity in distinguishing between normal grief and psychiatric illness
• What are the public policy reasons for limiting claims for psychiatric injury?

  • Risk of fraudulent claims
  • Potential for unlimited liability (floodgates argument)
  • Difficulty in diagnosing psychiatric conditions
  • Historical reluctance to treat mental illnesses as seriously as physical injuries
• What are the key principles established in McLoughlin v. O'Brian?

  • Claims can be made by those with close ties of love and affection to the victim
  • Shock can be suffered at the scene or in the immediate aftermath
  • No strict time limit for the immediate aftermath
• What are the key principles established in Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police?

  • Secondary victims must have close ties of love and affection to the victim
  • They must be proximate in time and space to the event
  • The injury must be caused by sudden shock
• What are the key differences between rescuers as primary and secondary victims?

  • Primary victim rescuers: Put themselves in physical danger, can claim for psychiatric injury
  • Secondary victim rescuers: Do not put themselves in physical danger, must satisfy Alcock's rules
• What are the key principles established in Page v. Smith?

  • If some kind of personal injury is foreseeable, it doesn't matter if the injury is physical or psychiatric
  • The thin skull rule applies: defendants must take their victims as they find them
• What are the key principles established in Chadwick v. British Rail?

  • Rescuers who put themselves at risk are considered primary victims
  • The court does not want to discourage members of the public from rescuing
• What are the key principles established in Hale v. London Underground?

  • Professional rescuers who put themselves in danger can claim as primary victims
  • They can claim for PTSD or other psychiatric injuries resulting from rescue attempts
• What are the key principles established in Vernon v. Bosley?

  • Pathological grief and trauma from witnessing an event can be grounds for a claim
  • The injury must be a recognized psychiatric condition