Tort Law
Essays Page
Psychiatric injury 2
Vicarious liability (1) 8
Vicarious liability (2) 13
Vicarious liability (3) 19
Vicarious liability (4) 25
Private nuisance (1) 31
Private nuisance (2) 37
RvF 43
Breach of duty (1) 49
Breach of duty (2) 55
Problem questions
Occupiers’ liability (1) 61
Occupiers’ liability (2) 67
Occupiers’ liability (3) 73
Occupiers’ liability (4) 78
Occupiers’ liability (5) 83
Private nuisance 89
Exam Paper 94
Marks and feedback provided – first-class answers
Only for reference purposes
1
, 2015 Q4
In your view what are the principal criticisms that can be made of the present law concerning liability
in tort for psychiatric damage? What reforms, if any, would you propose?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Sir Thomas Bingham MR described the law of psychiatric injury as "one of the most vexed
and tantalising in the modern law of tort." There are many criticisms that have been made
towards the current law. The candidate will discuss the problem and the suggestions of
reform in this paper.
The law is reluctant to impose a legal duty of care not to cause psychiatric injury to another.
In Victorian Railways Commissioner v Coultas, the court refused to allow a claim for
psychiatric harm as there was insufficient understanding of the harm and floodgates
argument. It was until Dulieu v White that it became possible for the claimant to bring a
successful claim in psychiatric harm.
The distinction between primary and secondary victims was made in Dulieu and
consequently “set in legal stone” in Alcock. In White v Chief Constable of the South
Yorkshire Police, it was held that those who are injured and go on to suffer psychiatric
injury and those who are in danger of injury or reasonably believed themselves to be in
danger and go on to suffer psychiatric injury are primary victims. Secondary victims were
defined as those who suffer psychiatric injury from witnessing death or injury to another.
Page provides the current law for primary victims. In Page v Smith, it was held that the
claimant only needs to prove foreseeability of personal injury, which includes any injury. The
decision in Page has attracted a lot of criticisms from commentators and judges alike. In
White, Lord Goff in his dissenting judgement described the decision on Page as “a
remarkable departure from... generally accepted principles.” The approach was also being
criticised as misunderstands the eggshell skull rule. His Lordship observed that the “eggshell
skull” rule was “a principle of compensation, not of liability”. Likewise, it appears that as
2
Essays Page
Psychiatric injury 2
Vicarious liability (1) 8
Vicarious liability (2) 13
Vicarious liability (3) 19
Vicarious liability (4) 25
Private nuisance (1) 31
Private nuisance (2) 37
RvF 43
Breach of duty (1) 49
Breach of duty (2) 55
Problem questions
Occupiers’ liability (1) 61
Occupiers’ liability (2) 67
Occupiers’ liability (3) 73
Occupiers’ liability (4) 78
Occupiers’ liability (5) 83
Private nuisance 89
Exam Paper 94
Marks and feedback provided – first-class answers
Only for reference purposes
1
, 2015 Q4
In your view what are the principal criticisms that can be made of the present law concerning liability
in tort for psychiatric damage? What reforms, if any, would you propose?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Sir Thomas Bingham MR described the law of psychiatric injury as "one of the most vexed
and tantalising in the modern law of tort." There are many criticisms that have been made
towards the current law. The candidate will discuss the problem and the suggestions of
reform in this paper.
The law is reluctant to impose a legal duty of care not to cause psychiatric injury to another.
In Victorian Railways Commissioner v Coultas, the court refused to allow a claim for
psychiatric harm as there was insufficient understanding of the harm and floodgates
argument. It was until Dulieu v White that it became possible for the claimant to bring a
successful claim in psychiatric harm.
The distinction between primary and secondary victims was made in Dulieu and
consequently “set in legal stone” in Alcock. In White v Chief Constable of the South
Yorkshire Police, it was held that those who are injured and go on to suffer psychiatric
injury and those who are in danger of injury or reasonably believed themselves to be in
danger and go on to suffer psychiatric injury are primary victims. Secondary victims were
defined as those who suffer psychiatric injury from witnessing death or injury to another.
Page provides the current law for primary victims. In Page v Smith, it was held that the
claimant only needs to prove foreseeability of personal injury, which includes any injury. The
decision in Page has attracted a lot of criticisms from commentators and judges alike. In
White, Lord Goff in his dissenting judgement described the decision on Page as “a
remarkable departure from... generally accepted principles.” The approach was also being
criticised as misunderstands the eggshell skull rule. His Lordship observed that the “eggshell
skull” rule was “a principle of compensation, not of liability”. Likewise, it appears that as
2
