• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

19 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

"If you allowed for nervous shock the difficulty which now often exists in cases of alleged physical injuries of determining whether they were caused by the negligent act would be greatly increased, and a wide field opened up for imaginary claims'

Coutas 1888

Foreseeability of nervous shock is the basis for liability however it by itself is not enough

McLoughlin v O'Brian

It is unjust to hold a mother as not being able to claim if she said in cross examination that her fear was for her child

Lord Atkin Hambrook v Stokes Bro

There is a difference between a gambling problem and a pathological gambling problem


There are primary and secondary victims


For secondary victims, what constitutes to an 'event' can be a contonuous infliction of sudden shocks


An event is only part of the aftermath if it retains sufficient proximity to the event


There is a difference between a succession of shocking events and a continuum of tragic but not unexpected events


What is required to be a primary victim?

1. In the actual area of danger

2. Was not in the area of danger but reasonably thought he was

3. Not originally in the area of danger but came into it

McFarlene v EE Caledonia

A rescuer not exposed to the physical injury and did not reasonably believe so is a to be treated as a secondary victim

White (Frost)

For secondary victims a control mechanism is that people are of ordinary phelgm

Bourhill v Young

An unwitting agent has to reasonably believe that his actions caused the harm


If the defendant has placed someone in the position of an unwilling participant then you look at the actual factual circumstances to see whether injury to the of that type to the agents is reasonably foreseeable.

Lord Slynn in W v Essex County Council

If the D owes a duty of care to avoid causing physical danger (primary victim scenario) then it does not matter that psychiatric harm was caused

Page v Smith

If it is foreseeable that physical harm will be caused in the future, such as through cancerous placts, the current psychiatric harm that occurs from knowing this is not claimale


You cannot recover if the primary victim is also the defendant.

Greatorex v Greatorex

There are no special protection for employees


When it comes to forseeable psychiatric harm that may occur on an employee, the employer is put on very limited notice and does not have to make positive inquiries


The employment DOC can sometimes be used to evade the primary and secondary victim dichotomy

Hartman (Melville)