TORT - NEGLIGENCE (PSYCHIATRIC
HARM) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
PASS GUARANTEED 100% ✅
What is 'psychiatric harm'? - Answer ✅1. Material;
2. Medically-recognised psychiatric illness; or
3. Shock-induced physical condition (e.g., heart attack)
"Material", e.g., more than just numbness in the arm and leg (Mazhar Hussain v CC West
Mercia).
YES: PTSD, clinical depression, heart attack
NO: grief, isolated flashbacks, stress, fear
Actual victim - Answer ✅Suffered:
1. Physical harm only; or
2. Physical and psychiatric harm.
Primary victim - Answer ✅Psychiatric harm as a result of reasonable fear for their own physical
safety (objective).
- No physical injury
- E.g., C suffered severe shock as a result of horse crashing through pub (Dulieu v White)
@2025 Exam Material 1
, - E.g., C's ME (overwhelming fatigue) worsened due to car crash (Page v Smith)
Secondary victim - Answer ✅Psychiatric harm as a result of reasonable fear for another's
physical safety (Alcock)
- E.g., hearing about/witnessing relatives' crushing in stadium
Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire - Answer ✅Fact: Hillsborough disaster; none of C's were present
at the stadium, but claimed for psychiatric harm as a result of hearing/witnessing the disaster
on radio/TV.
Held: DOC owed to secondary victims where:
1. C perceives shocking event with own unaided senses;
2. Sudden assault on C's nervous system;
3. Close tie of love and affection between C and primary victim (presumed in parent/child,
spouses, fiances)
4. Reasonably foreseeable that person of normal fortitude would suffer psychiatric damage.
Cullin v London Fire - Answer ✅Fact: C firefighter suffered psychiatric damage as a result of
seeing his colleagues jump into burning building.
Held: if rescuer/bystander suffers psychiatric damage as a result of fearing for their own safety,
they will be a primary victim. C held to be primary victim.
Primary victim (Page v Smith test for DOC) - Answer ✅Fact: D crashed into C, whose ME
(chronic fatigue) worsened after. D admitted negligence, but argued the psychiatric harm was
not foreseeable.
@2025 Exam Material 2
HARM) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
PASS GUARANTEED 100% ✅
What is 'psychiatric harm'? - Answer ✅1. Material;
2. Medically-recognised psychiatric illness; or
3. Shock-induced physical condition (e.g., heart attack)
"Material", e.g., more than just numbness in the arm and leg (Mazhar Hussain v CC West
Mercia).
YES: PTSD, clinical depression, heart attack
NO: grief, isolated flashbacks, stress, fear
Actual victim - Answer ✅Suffered:
1. Physical harm only; or
2. Physical and psychiatric harm.
Primary victim - Answer ✅Psychiatric harm as a result of reasonable fear for their own physical
safety (objective).
- No physical injury
- E.g., C suffered severe shock as a result of horse crashing through pub (Dulieu v White)
@2025 Exam Material 1
, - E.g., C's ME (overwhelming fatigue) worsened due to car crash (Page v Smith)
Secondary victim - Answer ✅Psychiatric harm as a result of reasonable fear for another's
physical safety (Alcock)
- E.g., hearing about/witnessing relatives' crushing in stadium
Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire - Answer ✅Fact: Hillsborough disaster; none of C's were present
at the stadium, but claimed for psychiatric harm as a result of hearing/witnessing the disaster
on radio/TV.
Held: DOC owed to secondary victims where:
1. C perceives shocking event with own unaided senses;
2. Sudden assault on C's nervous system;
3. Close tie of love and affection between C and primary victim (presumed in parent/child,
spouses, fiances)
4. Reasonably foreseeable that person of normal fortitude would suffer psychiatric damage.
Cullin v London Fire - Answer ✅Fact: C firefighter suffered psychiatric damage as a result of
seeing his colleagues jump into burning building.
Held: if rescuer/bystander suffers psychiatric damage as a result of fearing for their own safety,
they will be a primary victim. C held to be primary victim.
Primary victim (Page v Smith test for DOC) - Answer ✅Fact: D crashed into C, whose ME
(chronic fatigue) worsened after. D admitted negligence, but argued the psychiatric harm was
not foreseeable.
@2025 Exam Material 2
