LAW OF TORT
Seminar 2
NEGLIGENCE: Psychiatric Damage and the Duty of Care
Reading:
P Giliker, Tort (6th ed., Sweet & Maxwell, 2017), chapter 4
Cases:
McLoughlin v O'Brian [1982] 2 All ER 298
• Facts: Cl’s husband and her 3 children were involved in a road traffic accident. Cl was at
home at the time and was told by her neighbour that her family were involved in a serious
accident. When Cl arrived at the hospital she found that her daughter had died, and that
her other children and husband were covered in mud, blood and were distressed and had
not been cleaned up. Consequently she suffered psych harm.
• Held: HOL allowed her claim as a secondary victim, but each of the Law Lords allowed it
for different reasons.
- Lord Wilberforce and the majority said that reasonable foreseeability is relevant, but
they must also take into consideration wider policy considerations, and the law had to
place limits of which claims will be permitted. They said you need to take into
consideration 3 elements.
- Lord Scarman and Lord Bridge didn’t agree that policy was a factor to consider. Instead,
they took the principled approach that looked at whether psych injury was foreseeable.
• 3 elements:
1) the class of persons whose claims should be recognised;
2) the proximity of such persons to the accident; and
3) the means by which the shock is caused.
• Extra: A liberal landmark.
Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907
• Facts: A secondary victims case brought by the relatives of those who were injured at
Hillsborough but had been told on the media (TV/radio) that their loved ones had
died/were injured.
• Held: Claim was rejected.
• Extra: When the COA decided this case, there was outrage that police officers were
allowed to claim but not family.
Page v Smith [1996] AC 155; [1995] 2 All ER 736
• Facts: The claimant had suffered from a condition known as ME or chronic fatigue. He
had recovered from it when D was carelessly driving and bumped into Cl’s car in a very
minor accident. Cl then later claimed for psych harm because he said this minor accident
had revived his ME and he could never work again.
• Held: The court allowed the claim by majority.
Seminar 2
NEGLIGENCE: Psychiatric Damage and the Duty of Care
Reading:
P Giliker, Tort (6th ed., Sweet & Maxwell, 2017), chapter 4
Cases:
McLoughlin v O'Brian [1982] 2 All ER 298
• Facts: Cl’s husband and her 3 children were involved in a road traffic accident. Cl was at
home at the time and was told by her neighbour that her family were involved in a serious
accident. When Cl arrived at the hospital she found that her daughter had died, and that
her other children and husband were covered in mud, blood and were distressed and had
not been cleaned up. Consequently she suffered psych harm.
• Held: HOL allowed her claim as a secondary victim, but each of the Law Lords allowed it
for different reasons.
- Lord Wilberforce and the majority said that reasonable foreseeability is relevant, but
they must also take into consideration wider policy considerations, and the law had to
place limits of which claims will be permitted. They said you need to take into
consideration 3 elements.
- Lord Scarman and Lord Bridge didn’t agree that policy was a factor to consider. Instead,
they took the principled approach that looked at whether psych injury was foreseeable.
• 3 elements:
1) the class of persons whose claims should be recognised;
2) the proximity of such persons to the accident; and
3) the means by which the shock is caused.
• Extra: A liberal landmark.
Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907
• Facts: A secondary victims case brought by the relatives of those who were injured at
Hillsborough but had been told on the media (TV/radio) that their loved ones had
died/were injured.
• Held: Claim was rejected.
• Extra: When the COA decided this case, there was outrage that police officers were
allowed to claim but not family.
Page v Smith [1996] AC 155; [1995] 2 All ER 736
• Facts: The claimant had suffered from a condition known as ME or chronic fatigue. He
had recovered from it when D was carelessly driving and bumped into Cl’s car in a very
minor accident. Cl then later claimed for psych harm because he said this minor accident
had revived his ME and he could never work again.
• Held: The court allowed the claim by majority.
