4. Mental Harm - Delict

Front 1

What is required for a pursuer to claim they have suffered from 'nervous shock'?

Back 1

A recognized psychiatric disorder

Front 2

What was held in Simpson v ICI 1998

Back 2

simple distress is not sufficient to found a claim on nervous shock

Front 3

what case shows that emotional distress will not be sufficient to found a claim of nervous shock

Back 3

Simpson v ICI 1998

Front 4

how may victims of nervous shock be categorised?

Back 4

Primary and secondary victims

Front 5

What is a primary victim; which case states this?

Back 5

a primary victim is a person within the range of potential physical harm. Stated by page v Smith 1996 and White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1998

Front 6

What was the first English authority which stated that phychiatric harm is recoverable?

Back 6

Dulieu v White & Sons 1901

Front 7

which Scottish case first followed Dulieu v White & Sons 1901

Back 7

Wallace v Kennedy 1908

Front 8

What was the first case in which damages were awarded not for fear or personal safety but the safety of another?

Back 8

Hambrook v Stokes Bros 1925

Front 9

What was held in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1998?

Back 9

Respondent police officer were involved with the Hillsborough disaster. They were not in potential danger themselves, and thus not primary victims. They could not satisfy the requirements for recovery of damages to secondary victims so could not claim damages.

Front 10

What was held in Page v Smith 1996

Back 10

The defender's care bumped the pursuer's which did not cause physical damage but resulted in the re-occurance of the pursuers ME, which at the time was seen as a relevant for of mental harm. As the pursuer was exposed to danger, or reasonably apprehended themselves to be in danger damages were awarded as a primary victim.

Front 11

What was held in Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co ltd 2008

Back 11

The pursuer developed pleural plaques which are a sign of asbestos exposure. They are not harmful. Knowledge of this lead to clinical depression in the pursuer. As the plaques did not constitute a loss and the pursuer was claiming for psychiatric harm caused by finding out a possibility of something which had not happened yet, the defenders were not liable.

Front 12

What was held in Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1992?

Back 12

Reaosnable foreseeability of psychiatric harm is necessary for the existence of a duty of care. No duty will arise unless:

1. A tie of love an affection is established between the primary and secondary victim.

2. The secondary victim must be present at the event or its immediate aftermath

3. Perception of the event of its aftermath must be direct (the pursuer must personally see or hear the event or aftermath).

Front 13

What may constitute a tie of love and affection?

Back 13

Any relationship. It will be inferred from certain relationship such as parent/child, married partners etc. but evidence may be led to show it exists in others.

Front 14

What was held in Robertson v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board 1995 and McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd 1994?

Back 14

Pursuers were not regarded as being primary victims and their ties of love and affection were not sufficient to class them as secondary victims.

Front 15

What was held in Keen v Tayside Contracts 2003?

Back 15

A pursuer who assisted at a bad accident was classed as a secondary victim and no tie to the victims he saw so could not be awarded damages for mental harm he suffered.

Front 16

What cases show a situation where ties to the primary victim were not sufficient to allow a secondary victim to claim damages?

Back 16

Robertson v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board 1995 and McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd 1994

Front 17

What was held in Taylorson v Shieldness Produce ltd 1994

Back 17

Recovery was denied to parents as secondary victims who witnessed their child dying over a three day period as it was not a sudden, shocking event.

Front 18

What was held in Sion v Hampstead Heath Authority 1994?

Back 18

Parents who witness their son die over two weeks could not recover damages as secondary victims as it was not a sudden event.

Front 19

What cases show that in order for secondary victims to recover for psychiatric harm it must follow from some sudden event?

Back 19

1. Taylorson v Shieldness Produce ltd 1994?

2. Sion v Hampstead Heath Authority 1994?

Front 20

What was held in Tredget v Bexley Health Authority 1994

Back 20

The birth, and death two days later of a child allowed parents to recover damages as secondary victims as it was seen by the court as a single, sudden event.