This case involves tort law, specifically in the tort of negligent. The issue that needs to be determined is whether Alistair owes Eve a duty of care to avoid causing her psychiatric harm. To begin, our client, Miss Eve Edmunds who claims she has suffered psychiatric harm as a result of what happened to her fiancé Charles Carlisle. On the morning of Thursday 14th May 2015, a car struck Eve’s fiancé when he was cycling to work. After she saw her fiancé in hospital, Miss Edmunds combined with the blame she places upon herself for Charles’ injuries has had a detrimental impact on her mental health. In fact, Eve’s GP has been treating her for depression and she has also paid for some counselling.
Miss Edmunds might possibly be able to make a …show more content…
“There are two tests have to be satisfy in order to classified the claimants as secondary victims , which are there must be a close relationship of love and affection with the primary victim and proximity to the accident.’’
Furthermore, it is also important to prove that the psychiatric injury is directly suffered by the defendant’s negligence. As can be said “Was the claimants psychiatric injury triggered by the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of that horrifying event.” According to the case McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 (HL) , the court held that the nervous shock suffered was the reasonably foreseeable result of the injuries to her family caused by the defendant’s negligence and the claimant was entitled to recover damages.
Body (Application)
To apply in this case, we have to prove the elements one by one in order to decide whether Alistair owe Eve a duty of care to avoid causing her psychiatric harm. Those elements included Miss Edmunds suffered was caused by a sudden shock; Miss Edmunds had a close tie of love and affection with a primary victim; and Miss Edmunds witnessed the horrific event with their own or unaided
Miss Edmunds might possibly be able to make a …show more content…
“There are two tests have to be satisfy in order to classified the claimants as secondary victims , which are there must be a close relationship of love and affection with the primary victim and proximity to the accident.’’
Furthermore, it is also important to prove that the psychiatric injury is directly suffered by the defendant’s negligence. As can be said “Was the claimants psychiatric injury triggered by the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of that horrifying event.” According to the case McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 (HL) , the court held that the nervous shock suffered was the reasonably foreseeable result of the injuries to her family caused by the defendant’s negligence and the claimant was entitled to recover damages.
Body (Application)
To apply in this case, we have to prove the elements one by one in order to decide whether Alistair owe Eve a duty of care to avoid causing her psychiatric harm. Those elements included Miss Edmunds suffered was caused by a sudden shock; Miss Edmunds had a close tie of love and affection with a primary victim; and Miss Edmunds witnessed the horrific event with their own or unaided