a) Psychiatric injury is ‘caused by sudden shock, as distinct from normal grief, sorrow, or anxiety’ – Oxford Dictionary of Law. For this question I have to determine whether Homer and Selma can claim against Springfield’s Desserts after an explosion has left Homer with serious injury’s and Selma with psychiatric illness.
First of all, lets look at homer, as the question states it says that ‘due to carelessness on the part of Springfield Desserts, a large fryer used to cook the doughnuts exploded. A piece of debris hit Homer, causing serious injuries’. As you can see from this Homer was a primary victim of psychiatric injury as he was directly involved and at danger when the fryer exploded. As a primary victim, Homer can recover under the normal rules of negligence as seen below. Homer only needs to establish that physical harm was foreseeable to be successful in a claim against the defendant. In the question it states that Homer was the victim of serious injury’s which would mean this would be easy to identify. As Homers employers, Springfield Desserts had a duty of care for him which means they are responsible for any negligent behaviour on their premises, see Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) UKHL 2.
Secondly we look at Selma who is considered a secondary victim, …show more content…
Elizabeth, the defendant in this case will have to pay everything and in the question it has stated that she has accepted liability for the injuries suffered by John. Due to John still experiencing constant pain and discomfort it could mean that he’s entitled to more money as the judge must make a direct correlation between suffering and hard cash. The judge will have guidelines set up from previous cases and drawn up by the Judicial Studies Board which is capped at the most serious injuries of
First of all, lets look at homer, as the question states it says that ‘due to carelessness on the part of Springfield Desserts, a large fryer used to cook the doughnuts exploded. A piece of debris hit Homer, causing serious injuries’. As you can see from this Homer was a primary victim of psychiatric injury as he was directly involved and at danger when the fryer exploded. As a primary victim, Homer can recover under the normal rules of negligence as seen below. Homer only needs to establish that physical harm was foreseeable to be successful in a claim against the defendant. In the question it states that Homer was the victim of serious injury’s which would mean this would be easy to identify. As Homers employers, Springfield Desserts had a duty of care for him which means they are responsible for any negligent behaviour on their premises, see Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) UKHL 2.
Secondly we look at Selma who is considered a secondary victim, …show more content…
Elizabeth, the defendant in this case will have to pay everything and in the question it has stated that she has accepted liability for the injuries suffered by John. Due to John still experiencing constant pain and discomfort it could mean that he’s entitled to more money as the judge must make a direct correlation between suffering and hard cash. The judge will have guidelines set up from previous cases and drawn up by the Judicial Studies Board which is capped at the most serious injuries of