NEGLIGENCE + PSYCHIATRIC HARM
TORT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PASS
GUARANTEED 100% ✅
what must be proved? - Answer ✅duty of care, breach of duty and breach caused damage
suffered by claimant
primary, near miss and secondary victims - Answer ✅primary victim - suffers physical injury and
psychiatric harm as result of D's negligence
near miss (primary) - directly involved but narrowly avoided physical harm, still suffers
psychiatric harm
secondary - not physically injured but witnesses the event/immediate aftermath and suffers
psychiatric harm
duty of care (neighbour principle) - Answer ✅- Donoghue v Stevenson: duty of care is owed to
anyone affected by act or omission (neighbour principle)
duty of care (established duty) - Answer ✅Robinson rule: no need to prove duty where an
established ground of liability exists
- Montgomery v Lankarshire: doctor to patient
- Condon v Basi: sportsman to participants
- Nettleship v Weston: driver to road users
- Arthur JS v Simons: lawyer to client
@2025 Exam Material 1
TORT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PASS
GUARANTEED 100% ✅
what must be proved? - Answer ✅duty of care, breach of duty and breach caused damage
suffered by claimant
primary, near miss and secondary victims - Answer ✅primary victim - suffers physical injury and
psychiatric harm as result of D's negligence
near miss (primary) - directly involved but narrowly avoided physical harm, still suffers
psychiatric harm
secondary - not physically injured but witnesses the event/immediate aftermath and suffers
psychiatric harm
duty of care (neighbour principle) - Answer ✅- Donoghue v Stevenson: duty of care is owed to
anyone affected by act or omission (neighbour principle)
duty of care (established duty) - Answer ✅Robinson rule: no need to prove duty where an
established ground of liability exists
- Montgomery v Lankarshire: doctor to patient
- Condon v Basi: sportsman to participants
- Nettleship v Weston: driver to road users
- Arthur JS v Simons: lawyer to client
@2025 Exam Material 1
