PSYCHIATRIC HARM: PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY VICTIMS QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS PASS GUARANTEED 100% ✅
What is the test for determining if a primary victim is owed a duty of care for psychiatric harm? -
Answer ✅In Page v Smith [1996] it was held that the defendant must reasonably have foreseen
that the claimant might suffer physical injury as a result of their negligence.
Why is the test for duty of care to primary victims easier to satisfy than that for secondary
victims? - Answer ✅Because for primary victims, only physical injury needs to be foreseeable,
whereas for secondary victims the Alcock criteria apply.
What must be medically recognised for a claim of psychiatric harm to succeed? - Answer ✅The
claimant must have suffered a medically recognised psychiatric illness or a shock-induced
physical condition.
What sources might courts refer to when assessing psychiatric harm? - Answer ✅Medical
manuals, medical history/notes, expert evidence, and precedent.
Why was only part of the claim allowed in Hinz v Berry [1970]? - Answer ✅Only the depression
was a medically recognised psychiatric illness caused by the shock of witnessing the accident;
grief, sorrow and worry were not.
What example illustrates that a shock-induced physical condition can form the subject of a
claim? - Answer ✅Miscarriage or a heart attack can be claimed if caused by shock and the harm
is material.
@2025 Exam Material 1
, What was decided in Mazhar Hussain v Chief Constable of West Mercia [2008]? - Answer ✅The
claimant's stress and anxiety were not medically recognised psychiatric illnesses, and the
numbness was not material physical damage.
Which new psychiatric conditions are being recognised by courts? - Answer ✅Post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis), and pathological grief syndrome.
What must be foreseeable for a duty of care to a primary victim to arise? - Answer ✅Physical
harm must be reasonably foreseeable.
What was the key ruling in Page v Smith on foreseeability? - Answer ✅If physical injury is
foreseeable, the claimant can recover damages for psychiatric harm even if they were not
physically injured.
What principle did Page v Smith confirm regarding pre-existing conditions? - Answer ✅The thin
skull rule - if physical injury is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the
psychiatric harm, even if aggravated by a pre-existing condition.
What principles apply once physical injury is found to be foreseeable? - Answer ✅The normal
principles for determining the existence of a duty of care apply.
What is said about proximity for primary victims? - Answer ✅The primary victim is always
present at the traumatic event, so there is always geographical proximity.
When is it likely to be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on a defendant? -
Answer ✅If the defendant negligently and foreseeably puts the claimant in fear for their safety,
a duty is likely to be imposed for psychiatric damage.
@2025 Exam Material 2
SECONDARY VICTIMS QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS PASS GUARANTEED 100% ✅
What is the test for determining if a primary victim is owed a duty of care for psychiatric harm? -
Answer ✅In Page v Smith [1996] it was held that the defendant must reasonably have foreseen
that the claimant might suffer physical injury as a result of their negligence.
Why is the test for duty of care to primary victims easier to satisfy than that for secondary
victims? - Answer ✅Because for primary victims, only physical injury needs to be foreseeable,
whereas for secondary victims the Alcock criteria apply.
What must be medically recognised for a claim of psychiatric harm to succeed? - Answer ✅The
claimant must have suffered a medically recognised psychiatric illness or a shock-induced
physical condition.
What sources might courts refer to when assessing psychiatric harm? - Answer ✅Medical
manuals, medical history/notes, expert evidence, and precedent.
Why was only part of the claim allowed in Hinz v Berry [1970]? - Answer ✅Only the depression
was a medically recognised psychiatric illness caused by the shock of witnessing the accident;
grief, sorrow and worry were not.
What example illustrates that a shock-induced physical condition can form the subject of a
claim? - Answer ✅Miscarriage or a heart attack can be claimed if caused by shock and the harm
is material.
@2025 Exam Material 1
, What was decided in Mazhar Hussain v Chief Constable of West Mercia [2008]? - Answer ✅The
claimant's stress and anxiety were not medically recognised psychiatric illnesses, and the
numbness was not material physical damage.
Which new psychiatric conditions are being recognised by courts? - Answer ✅Post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis), and pathological grief syndrome.
What must be foreseeable for a duty of care to a primary victim to arise? - Answer ✅Physical
harm must be reasonably foreseeable.
What was the key ruling in Page v Smith on foreseeability? - Answer ✅If physical injury is
foreseeable, the claimant can recover damages for psychiatric harm even if they were not
physically injured.
What principle did Page v Smith confirm regarding pre-existing conditions? - Answer ✅The thin
skull rule - if physical injury is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the
psychiatric harm, even if aggravated by a pre-existing condition.
What principles apply once physical injury is found to be foreseeable? - Answer ✅The normal
principles for determining the existence of a duty of care apply.
What is said about proximity for primary victims? - Answer ✅The primary victim is always
present at the traumatic event, so there is always geographical proximity.
When is it likely to be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on a defendant? -
Answer ✅If the defendant negligently and foreseeably puts the claimant in fear for their safety,
a duty is likely to be imposed for psychiatric damage.
@2025 Exam Material 2
