Scribd
Upload
2 views22 pages

Negligence Psychiatric Harm Week 6 To 9

The document discusses the legal principles surrounding negligent infliction of emotional distress, highlighting that individuals can seek damages for severe mental harm caused by another's negligence. It references key cases such as Dillon v. Legg and Leach v. Chief Constable, illustrating how courts determine liability based on proximity and foreseeability. Additionally, it introduces the 'egg-shell skull' rule, which holds defendants liable for all consequences of their actions, regardless of foreseeability of the injuries sustained.

Uploaded by

Shubegh Brar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views22 pages

Negligence Psychiatric Harm Week 6 To 9

The document discusses the legal principles surrounding negligent infliction of emotional distress, highlighting that individuals can seek damages for severe mental harm caused by another's negligence. It references key cases such as Dillon v. Legg and Leach v. Chief Constable, illustrating how courts determine liability based on proximity and foreseeability. Additionally, it introduces the 'egg-shell skull' rule, which holds defendants liable for all consequences of their actions, regardless of foreseeability of the injuries sustained.

Uploaded by

Shubegh Brar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 22

NEGLIGENCE: PSYCHIATRIC HARM

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

• This means that


• even when there is no intent to harm, or reckless disregard of the risk of harm,
• one who has suffered severe mental harm can seek to recover damages caused by
someone else’s negligent conduct.
• As a negligence-based cause of action, the courts will seek to determine whether the
defendant breached a duty of care to the plaintiff, causing emotional distress.

2
DILLON V. LEGG
• Case from California, a mother who saw her daughter run over by a negligent
driver while she was standing a few feet away sued for negligent infliction of
emotional harm.
• The court ruled that even though the mother herself was on the sidewalk, and
not in serious danger, that fact should not prevent her from recovering
damages for her suffering.
• Rather than requiring a plaintiff be in the zone of danger, the court ruled that
being present at the scene and witnessing injury to a family member was
enough.
3
PSYCHIATRIC INJURIES MUST BE MEDICALLY RECOGNIZED
POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary[1999] 1 WLR 1421
• The claimant was working as an unpaid volunteer when, without warning as to
the nature of his crimes, she agreed to act as an appropriate adult for serial
killer Fred West during the investigation of his crimes.
• As a result she suffered PTSD (and a stroke).
• Due to their failure to provide proper support to the claimant, it was held that
the defendant had failed in its duty to support her, and the claim succeeded.
TRAUMA-INDUCED MISCARRIAGE
• Although not strictly a psychiatric injury (rather, a physical harm occasioned by
psychiatric trauma), there are a number of cases in which traumatic events
have been linked to miscarriages.
Bourhill v Young[1943] AC 92
• The claimant, who was pregnant at the time, went into shock after witnessing
the death of the defendant, who was riding his motorcycle carelessly.
• She subsequently brought a case against the defendant’s estate.
• It should be noted that the case failed - there was insufficient proximity
between the defendant and the claimant, although it still stands as an
example of miscarriage as a medically recognized injury for the purposes of
tort.
PSYCHIATRIC INJURIES MUST BE CAUSED BY A SUDDEN EVENT
WHITE V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE

Primary Victims Secondary Victims


Primary Victim: Page v Smith [1996] AC 155
• The defendant negligently failed to give way when moving from a side road
onto a main road. This resulted in a collision with the claimant’s car.
• Whilst the claimant was physically unharmed by the accident, it caused him to
suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) (also known as Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome) - a psychiatric injury which he had previously had, but which was in
remission before the accident.
• The key issue was whether this harm was foreseeable or not.
• It was held that for primary victims, foreseeability of a physical injury is
sufficient to allow a primary victim to claim for a psychiatric injury.
Primary Victim: Dooley v Cammell Laird[1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 271
• the claimant was a dockside crane operator working for the defendant.
Whilst loading a ship with heavy materials, the cable on the defendant’s
crane snapped (it emerged that the cable provided was too weak for the
job). The load dropped suddenly into the hold of the ship.
• This meant that the claimant could not see if he had killed anyone or not.
Believing, temporarily, that he had killed somebody (or a number of people),
the claimant suffered acute shock, aggravating a pre-existing psychological
condition.
• This was held to be a valid claim - the claimant had a reasonable belief that
he had killed someone.
• Secondary Victims

There must be a close emotional link


between the traumatic event and
the claimant’s psychiatric injury

The secondary victim must be both


close in terms of ‘proximity’

The secondary victim must see or


hear the immediate aftermath of
the instigating event.
OTHER LEGAL PRINCIPLES
THE ‘EGG-SHELL SKULL’ RULE
• The ‘egg-shell skull’ (as often seen in criminal law) applies to psychiatric injury.
• In essence, this means that a claimant’s particular psychiatric injury does not need to be
foreseeable.
• Even in cases where the injuries are worse than one would have anticipated, the negligent
party is still responsible for all the consequences.
• The eggshell skull rule gets its name from a common example often used to describe a
situation where the plaintiff would be able to recover when their damages are worse than
expected.
• In this example, there is an imaginary person who has an extremely thin skull, as fragile as an
eggshell, even though the person looks completely normal. This person is hit in the head by
someone else.
• A normal person would have been a little injured , but the person with the eggshell skull dies.
• So according to the eggshell skull rule, the person who hit the eggshell skulled person will not
be just liable for the little injury but for the death of the person also even though, it was
unforeseeable.
THE ‘EGG-SHELL SKULL’ RULE
• For example :
• If a man named A is driving a car while texting and due to his negligence he hits
an old person named S and S suffers from fractured arm and legs owing to the
accident.
• If a healthy person was hit, that person wouldn't have sustained any injuries as the
speed of car was very low but since S was an old man and his bones had become
very weak due to old age, he suffered fractures.
• In this case the defendant must be liable for the full extent of damage.
THE ‘EGG-SHELL SKULL’ RULE
• Vosburg v. Putney:
• A 14 year old boy, Vosburg, was kicked in the shin by an 11 year old boy
George Putney, in school.
• Putney kicked so lightly that Vosburg didn't immediately feel it.
• What Putney didn't know was that Vosburg already had an injury in his leg and
due to the kicking incident Vosburg developed a serious infection which left him
with a weakness in his leg for the rest of his life.
• Though the injury was unforeseeable but still the defendant was held liable for all
the injuries.
Damage to Property
• Although the case law regarding secondary victims focuses on seeing other
people get hurt, there is precedent to suggest that seeing property destroyed
can be sufficient to establish a case for psychiatric injury.
• Attia v British Gas[1988] QB 304
• the claimant returned home one day to see her house fiercely aflame, as a
result of negligence by the defendant.
• It was held to be foreseeable that such a sight would cause psychiatric injury,
and so damages were recoverable.
Injurious News
• Finally, there is precedent to suggest that negligently presenting shocking news
to someone that can meet the standard for actionable psychiatric injury.
• Allin v City and Hackney Health Authority [1996] 7 Med LR 167,
• the claimant was told, inaccurately, that her baby was dead.
• It was held that the defendant had a duty to avoid such false disclosures, and
so a case for psychiatric injury was found to exist.

You might also like