The problem question relates to problems arising under the tort of negligence. For
establishing the liability under negligence, all elements should be satisfied for an
effective claim. The elements are duty and breach of duty of care along with factual
causation and causation in law. It is crucial to deal with liabilities arising under
negligence causing injuries which are psychiatric and physical in nature. English law
has been hesitant in allowing claims under negligence causing injuries which are
psychiatric in nature. There is a number of policy reasons behind this decision as
allowing claims under psychiatric injury could more likely to open floodgates of cases as
people could claim for unwanted and fraudulent reasons. The English Law Report 1998
has provided future recommendations for cases which could possibly change the
criteria for establishing liability under tort of negligence causing psychiatric injuries. It is
more likely that defendant will be liable for causing injuries under negligence and
possible claimants are Tom, Maria, Chloe, Jones.
There are two types of victim who encounters psychiatric injuries. First are the victims
primary victims who suffered physical injuries which leads to psychiatric injury and
second are wo suffered injuries through witness of an accident involving others. In order
to claim psychiatric injury first need to establish if the injuries are recognizable at law or
not.
Tom
To, if satisfy the requirements then can claim under primary and secondary victim. In
order to claim under primary victim, some requirements needs to be fulfilled such as
psychiatric injuries were foreseeable.
In case of Dulieu v White it can be seen that a women was entitled to recover damages
due to pre mature birth of baby without physical impact therefore fall under primary
victim. In contrast case of Page v Smith where HOL allowed the appeal on basis that
victim has been harmed by physical injuries hence can claim psychiatric injury. As Tom
was directly involved in the incident and had depression therefore, more likely to claim
damages under primary victim.
Maria
Maria was not directly involved in the incident. In able to claim damages under
psychiatric injury she must need to prove that she falls under primary or secondary
victim.It could be argued that there is no direct connection between Maria and the
incident. The only category in which Maria can bring claim is secondary victim. The
requirement of secondary victim is psychiatric injury must not be caused by physical
impact rather caused by witnessing an event or incident. In case of McLoughlin v
O’Brian(1982), HOL put requirements of secondary victim in able to claim damages,
the injury must be foreseeable, there must be direct relationship of victim and claimant
and proximity to event. It could be argued that, event was foreseeable and there is
direct relationship of Maria and Tom as Parent and child. It is more likely that proximity
establishing the liability under negligence, all elements should be satisfied for an
effective claim. The elements are duty and breach of duty of care along with factual
causation and causation in law. It is crucial to deal with liabilities arising under
negligence causing injuries which are psychiatric and physical in nature. English law
has been hesitant in allowing claims under negligence causing injuries which are
psychiatric in nature. There is a number of policy reasons behind this decision as
allowing claims under psychiatric injury could more likely to open floodgates of cases as
people could claim for unwanted and fraudulent reasons. The English Law Report 1998
has provided future recommendations for cases which could possibly change the
criteria for establishing liability under tort of negligence causing psychiatric injuries. It is
more likely that defendant will be liable for causing injuries under negligence and
possible claimants are Tom, Maria, Chloe, Jones.
There are two types of victim who encounters psychiatric injuries. First are the victims
primary victims who suffered physical injuries which leads to psychiatric injury and
second are wo suffered injuries through witness of an accident involving others. In order
to claim psychiatric injury first need to establish if the injuries are recognizable at law or
not.
Tom
To, if satisfy the requirements then can claim under primary and secondary victim. In
order to claim under primary victim, some requirements needs to be fulfilled such as
psychiatric injuries were foreseeable.
In case of Dulieu v White it can be seen that a women was entitled to recover damages
due to pre mature birth of baby without physical impact therefore fall under primary
victim. In contrast case of Page v Smith where HOL allowed the appeal on basis that
victim has been harmed by physical injuries hence can claim psychiatric injury. As Tom
was directly involved in the incident and had depression therefore, more likely to claim
damages under primary victim.
Maria
Maria was not directly involved in the incident. In able to claim damages under
psychiatric injury she must need to prove that she falls under primary or secondary
victim.It could be argued that there is no direct connection between Maria and the
incident. The only category in which Maria can bring claim is secondary victim. The
requirement of secondary victim is psychiatric injury must not be caused by physical
impact rather caused by witnessing an event or incident. In case of McLoughlin v
O’Brian(1982), HOL put requirements of secondary victim in able to claim damages,
the injury must be foreseeable, there must be direct relationship of victim and claimant
and proximity to event. It could be argued that, event was foreseeable and there is
direct relationship of Maria and Tom as Parent and child. It is more likely that proximity
