Psychiatric injury’s

• Primary Victims

  • Those who were present at the scene and injured - (Page v Smith)
  • Those whose safety was threatened - (Dulieu V White and Sons)
  • Rescuers (Chadwick V British Railways)
• Secondary Victims

  Those who were not directly involved and their safety wasn't threatened however they witnessed it
• Page V Smith

  • C was involved in a car collision caused by D’s negligence which caused no physical injury
  • As a result of the accident, C suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome which affected him on and off for 25 years but has now became permanent
  • D argued that it is not foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude would suffer psychiatric illness
• To Claim for Psychiatric injury

  • The claimant must be a Primary or Secondary Victim
  • The injury must be a recognised psychiatric disorder with long lasting effects spanning from the shock of the scene
• Primary Victim test

  If their injury is foreseeable, physically or psychiatric, they can claim.
• Secondary Victim test

  • Originated from Allcock v Cheif Constable of S Yorks.

  1. C must have witnessed the scene or immediate aftermath - Atkinson V Seghal
  2. C must have close ties of love and affection with the primary victim - Atkinson V Seghal.
  3. C must perceive events with own senses (Alcock v Cheif Constable)
  4. C must suffer sudden shock (unlike Sion v Hampstead HA)
• Alcock V Cheif Constable of South Yorkshire

  • Cases were brought by friends and relatives of those caught in the Hillsborough football stadium tragedy:

  1. The two brothers of victim Brian Harrison who were at the site and witnessed his death
  2. The brother-in-law of victim Robert Alcock who was also at the site
  3. Relatives who saw their kin injured on TV
• Lord Wilberforce's 3 elements from Alcock

  • Class of persons whose claim should be recognised
  • Proximity to the accident
  • Means of Shock
• Class of persons whos claim should be recognised

  • There must be the closest of family ties with the victim
  • There is a presumption that love and affection in relationships that it ought to be reasonably foreseeable that persons in those are likely to suffer shock resulting in psychiatric illness
  • An unconnected bystander cannot be entirely excluded if it is particularly horrific
• Proximity to the accident

  • It is reasonably foreseeable that injury by shock can be caused to a plaintiff, not only through the sight or hearing of the event, but of its immediate aftermath.
• Means of shock

  • It must come through sight or hearing of the event or of its immediate aftermath
  • Law should not compensate for shock brought by communication of a third party
  • Watching the accident on TV does not suffice, as witnessing the aftermath on TV only causes anxiety, if the TV organisers show a tragic event happening then they are liable
• Atkinson v Seghal

  • G’s daughter died in a road traffic accident because of D’s negligent driving.
  • G arrived at the scene of the accident approximately one hour after the accident had occurred, and was informed that her daughter was dead.
  • Approximately two hours later, G went to the mourge and saw the dead body of her daughter, as a result, G suffered significant psychiatric disorder.
• Sion V Hampstead Health Authority

  • C's son was seriously injured in a motorcycle crash.
  • Staff failed to diagnose a bleeding kidney.
  • Son eventually died.
  • C stayed by son's bed and suffered psychiatric injury.
  • C claimed against hospital and lost on the basis that there was no sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event.