Negligence: Pure Psychiatric Harm Practice Flashcards

Flashcards covering the legal principles of negligence related to pure psychiatric harm, including primary and secondary victim tests, the Alcock control mechanisms, and relevant case law illustrations for SQE1 preparation.

What is the general rule regarding the duty of care for pure psychiatric harm?

As a general rule, a defendant does not owe any duty of care to a claimant not to cause pure psychiatric harm.

What is the defining feature of 'pure psychiatric harm' compared to 'consequential psychiatric harm'?

Pure psychiatric harm is caused without any physical impact or injury to the claimant, whereas consequential psychiatric harm follows from a physical injury suffered by the claimant.

According to the SQE1 syllabus, what are the two requirements for a injury to be classed as pure psychiatric harm for which a duty of care might be owed?

The injury must be either a medically recognised psychiatric illness or a shock-induced physical condition (such as a heart attack or miscarriage).

How is a 'primary victim' defined in the context of psychiatric harm?

A primary victim is someone who was actually involved in the incident, meaning they were in the actual area of danger or reasonably believed they were in danger.

What is the requirement for a duty of care to be owed to a primary victim regarding pure psychiatric harm?

A duty of care is owed provided that the risk of physical injury was foreseeable, even if the risk of psychiatric harm itself was not foreseeable.

According to the case of $Page v Smith [1995]$, is it necessary for the risk of psychiatric harm to be foreseeable for a primary victim?

No, it is not necessary for the risk of psychiatric harm to be foreseeable; it is sufficient that physical injury was foreseeable.

How is a 'secondary victim' defined?

A secondary victim is someone not involved in the incident in the same way as a primary victim, such as someone who witnesses injury to someone else or fears for the safety of another person.

What are the four 'Alcock control mechanisms' required to establish a duty of care for a secondary victim?

1. Foreseeability of psychiatric harm (normal fortitude); 2. Proximity of relationship; 3. Proximity in time and space; 4. Proximity of perception.

What is the 'normal fortitude' requirement for secondary victims?

It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude in the claimant’s position would suffer a psychiatric illness.

In which relationships is a 'close tie of love and affection' presumed for secondary victims?

The presumption exists for parent/child, husband/wife, and fiancé/fiancée relationships.

What are the requirements for 'proximity in time and space' and 'proximity of perception' for secondary victims?

The claimant must be present at the accident or its 'immediate aftermath' and must see or hear the accident or its immediate aftermath with their own senses.

In $McLoughlin v O’Brian [1982]$, why was the claimant able to recover damages despite not being at the scene of the accident?

She arrived at the hospital about $1$ hour after the accident and saw her family still covered in oil and mud, which the court held to be part of the 'immediate aftermath'.

Why did the claimants who watched the Hillsborough disaster on live television fail the 'proximity of perception' test in $Alcock$?

Because the live television pictures did not show identifiable individuals suffering, which the court decided was not equivalent to seeing or hearing the event with their own senses.

How are rescuers treated regarding duty of care for pure psychiatric harm according to $White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999]$?

Rescuers are treated the same as any other victim: they are primary victims if in the area of danger, and secondary victims if they were never at risk of physical injury.

In the case of $Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967]$, why was the rescuer treated as a primary victim?

Because he was clearly in the area of danger and at risk of physical injury while crawling into the train debris to assist the wounded.

How does the 'egg-shell skull' rule apply to secondary victims who are particularly vulnerable to psychiatric harm?

The claimant must first show that psychiatric illness was foreseeable in a person of normal fortitude; once this is established, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm, even if the claimant's 'egg-shell' personality makes it greater than expected.

True or False: Professional rescuers (e.g., police officers, fire fighters) are expected to display more than normal fortitude compared to the average person.

False; there is no special rule requiring professional rescuers to be more than usually resistant to shocking events.