3. Paul's Secondary Victim Criteria

Paul – Secondary Victims Criteria

Paul established four criteria as to whether or not a secondary victim is owed a duty of care.

1st Criterion – Close Tie of Love and Affection

To establish a duty, there must be a close tie of love and affection to the primary victim. If the psychiatric injury is caused by witnessing the death or injury of another person, the claimant must show a 'sufficiently proximate' relationship. Ties are presumed only between parents and children, spouses, and fiancés. In other relations, including siblings, ties of love and affection must be proven.

2nd Criterion – Proximity to the Event/Immediate Aftermath

The claimant must perceive an incident with their own unaided senses as an eye-witness to the event, hearing the event in person, or viewing its 'immediate aftermath'. This requires close physical proximity to the event. The 'immediate aftermath' includes seeing a primary victim in an untreated state (McLoughlin v O'Brian).

3rd Criterion – Direct Perception

The claimant must have witnessed the scene or immediate aftermath with their own senses. Direct perception usually excludes events witnessed by television or informed of by a 3rd party.

4th Criterion – Reasonable Foreseeability and Normal Fortitude

It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude would have suffered psychiatric harm as a result of the defendant's breach of duty. The thin skull rule does not apply to secondary victims, so a person who is especially susceptible to shock or psychiatric injury will not be owed a duty of care.