Negligence scenario in Tort Law?

In response to question one, it is unlikely to be a case of psychiatric injury. If the mother has not witnessed the immediate aftermath of the death of the child. There must be proximity in time, perception and relationship.

What if the other sees the dead body in bloddy state after some time like maybe 3 hours? or is 6 hours the maximum?

It has been several years since last dealing with a case of tort so you'll need to check what I've said.
The studio owes a duty of care in providing a safe workplace for all employees and others on the premises. So assuming the studio was under a duty of care for the person then it would be responsible considering statutory health and safety laws. The studio in turn could then sue the camera fitter only if he is working as an individual. If he is working for a company the studio will seek damages form the fitter's employing company (provided he was fitted the camera whilst under a duty of employment).

If a duty of care is not established between the studio (there a numerous cases where an employer can do this given certain conditions)
Regarding causation and foreseeablity, if done correctly, one could argue or at least entertain that there was a direct link between the negligence of the camera fitter which caused death. There was no break in the chain of causation if the studio could reasonably rely on the experience and qualifications of the fitter, as to make the event which occurred unforeseeable on part of the studio.

Regarding the mother it is all down to circumstance. How bad was the shock-disorder, did it stop her from doing things normally?
Did either party owe her a duty of care?

This is all rather superficial but hope it helps

Thank you for your answer, it helped a lot. But I have thought that the camera fitter(as a company) is expected to be a professional therefore, it is foreseeable that if the fitting has been done negligently, it is likely to hurt someone. Also, no precautions would have been taken by the studio because the camera fitter is being trusted as a professional. Is this right or am I going too deep into other possibilities?

I believe so, yes. So long as the employee was doing what he was employed to do, the company is held responsible for his actions. If he is acting outside the scope of his employment then the company is not responsible. We once had a case where a bus conductor was reversing a bus at the end of a route and he hit a person. The company was not held liable for the accident because the bus conductor was not hired to drive the bus, he was only hired to collect money. Hope that helps to explain it a little better!

You're correct but it would become a very technical fight between the studio's and the fitter's insurance companies. In some scenarios it's very clear - if you own a building with a lift, you trust the lift company as you have no real ability to service or inspect the lift yourself -hence if the lift fails due to negligence, that misses the occupier and goes to the "expert". However, if the building is a studio and the business of the occupier is related to that, it could be that the occupier has enough competence and control over the fittings to be liable.

So does that mean that the only way to award these two people is to compensate them? How do you compensate dead people? Is the mother going to be compensated instead as she develops post-traumatic shock disorder?

Tort is almost always about damages. The only equitable remedy might be a order to prevent future recurrence, but that won't always be appropriate.

Thank you, I understand now. What if someone is left disabled or blind/deaf etc. if they were standing too close to the scene of the camera where the camera broke? Is the person negligent for standing too close?

Thank you, I understand now. What if someone is left disabled or blind/deaf etc. if they were standing too close to the scene of the camera where the camera broke? Is the person negligent for standing too close?

Thank you for your answer, it helped a lot. But I have thought that the camera fitter(as a company) is expected to be a professional therefore, it is foreseeable that if the fitting has been done negligently, it is likely to hurt someone. Also, no precautions would have been taken by the studio because the camera fitter is being trusted as a professional. Is this right or am I going too deep into other possibilities?