A more recent version of these Negligence Psychiatric Harm notes – written by Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
General Negligence _______________________________________________________
Psychiatric Harm Restrictive attitude to psychiatric harm - NB Negligence and Damages Bill in Parliament atm which proposes to get rid of shock mechanism (though poor chance of success)
Medically recognised illness Hicks v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Held: distress, annoyance and inconvenience and other symptoms short of personal injury do not confer a cause of action in negligence Nervous Shock Alcock Hillsborough disaster victims' relevative claimed for damages Held: the claimants were not primary victims so the claimed failed. Lord Oliver established the categories of victims:
? Primary victims
? Secondary victims
? Rachel Muleron: notes difficulties in the lack of coherent definition of these two categories
? Lord Phillips CJ "no magic in this terminology"
Primary victims Factors establishing primary victimhood:
? Direct involvement in the incident
? Someone exposed to physical danger
? Someone who reasonably believed they were involved in physical danger A primary victim must be within the 'zone of physical danger' White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Claims from police officers, some of whom were at the time off-duty, involved in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster suffering psychiatric harm. Claimed to be rescuers (who were considered primary victims).
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Tort Law Notes.