[TragicMirror]

Would anybody be able to offer any suggestions on how to form an argument that:

there is a duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric damage attached to negligent infliction of injury to oneself.

The only case I can find on the topic is Greatorex which states that there isn't a duty, so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

[suffocation1992]

(Original post by TragicMirror)
Would anybody be able to offer any suggestions on how to form an argument that:

there is a duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric damage attached to negligent infliction of injury to oneself.

The only case I can find on the topic is Greatorex which states that there isn't a duty, so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

I think Greatorex is the appropriate case here. Maybe have a look at the court's rationale for that denial of duty; personal autonomy.

In my own opinion, Greatorex seems to be highly specific to its facts though, given that the parties were family members, the court didn't want to encourage inter-family litigation, and if it imposed a duty of care, it might have caused additional stress to the family when they already had the stress of having their son in hospital.

Would the outcome have been the same if they were strangers, is an interesting question!

[Clip]

I assume you're thinking of a situation like - G self-harms in some horrific way, M walks in and gets nervous shock.

Suffocation (above) is right - as an Alcock secondary victim, M kind of has to be a relative in order to have a claim, and that would mean suing her self-harming relative. I'm not sure that you will find any more direct case law other than Greatorex.

On the other hand, if it's an academic argument, you could try and fill the void from an oblique. Rescuers can sue if the circumstances that brought about the situation were caused by D's own negligence. If M walks in, it might be reasonable to count her as a rescuer.

I'm also thinking Wilkinson v Downton (although not negligence). If the self-harmer is doing some sort of attention seeking (rather than actually trying to kill themselves), then I think you could argue Wilkinson - as long as it sustains recklessness.