SiidraXo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Anyone help with an intro for negligence e.g breach of duty , psychiatric harm and cases please
0
reply
hotliketea
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by SiidraXo)
Anyone help with an intro for negligence e.g breach of duty , psychiatric harm and cases please
Can you be a bit more specific? That's a really broad aspect of cases and it could take an hour to give a full overview of 'intro to negligence'.

Essentially , if you want to know where to look:

NEGLIGENCE OVERVIEW
Duty of care under Caparo v Dickman per Lord Bridge, requiring a relationship of proximity , foreseeable harm and that it is FJR to impose liability.

PSYCHIATRIC HARM
Per Lord Wilberforce in McLoughlin v O'Brien the usual Donoghue test does not apply because of the worry about floodgates (which Lord Bridge thought to be exaggerated) - need proximity of time, space, perception and relationship.

This was then developed in Alcock v CC per Lord Oliver , requiring that a primary victim be 'mediately or immediately' involved, including rescuers and unwitting agents of misfortune (see e.g. Dooley v Cammell). This was then adapted in White v CC such that the individual must be in the 'foreseeable zone' of danger, with Lord Hoffmann specifically rejecting rescuers for being too uncertain (although see McFarlane v Caledonia), and unwitting agents suggested also to be removed.

It then seems that being in the zone is not enough - need reasonable fear by C, which is also not enough (Hegarty v Caledonia), but also need D to have reasonably foreseen C would fear the situation. However, some cases suggest C need not fear for themselves at all (e.g. Young v Charles Church) and that being in the zone is enough.

You then have secondary victims, per Alcock, which requires proximity of time and space (extending both temporally and spatially forward: McLoughlin), proximity of perception (with your own unaided senses: White, and can be out of sight: Hambrook v Stokes Bros) and proximity of relationship (with rebuttable relationships being between spouses and parents and children, as settled in Alcock, but cases such as McCarthy v Chief Constable show other relationships can be established, in that case between two half-brothers).

Finally, the case of employers, where per Lady Hale in Hatton v Sutherland, it is sufficient that there was foreseeability of psychiatric injury, although stress is insufficient and both the CoA and the HoL were unanimous that no profession in particular is more likely to result in psychiatric injury or such injury to be 'more foreseeable'. Examples of breaching this duty once it is owed is not offering counselling, although offering counselling is not a panacea (Daw v Intel) and it should be noted that in most cases, the fact that an employee will try and hide their struggles protects the employer (Pratley v Surrey CC).

There have also, additionally, been cases which remove cases that would usually fail under the primary/secondary victim test and allow them to succeed under the employee heading, or by finding an assumption of responsibility. For example, Melville v Home Office must be based largely on the principle that the employer failed to give counselling, rather than the suicide itself being seen as causal. Additionally, the courts were creative in Butchart v Home Office in finding the relationship between a prisoner and the prison itself to be akin to an employee relationship, allowing a claim, and in the case of W v Essex CC it is better to perceive it as a claim for the public authority's breach of duty rather than in the primary/secondary victim framework.

BREACH OF DUTY
The normal test is Blyth v Birmingham Water Works, based on whether or not the reasonable person would have behaved the same way, but the courts take various things into account.

In regard to the characteristics that can be attributed to this 'reasonable person', it seems clear that their experience is irrelevant (Nettleship v Weston), as is sickness (Barnett v Kensington), unless the illness was unknown (Weetabix v Manfield) and unless the 'experience' is their age and (perhaps) their gender (Mullin v Richards). It also seems clear that the courts determine the reasonable person based on the nature of the task (Wells v Cooper) and that if they are a professional professing a certain standard, they will be held to this standard (Maynard v West Midlands).

Likelihood of harm --> Bolton v Stone suggested an individual would not seek to minimise the smallest of harm, but Wagon Mound suggested it is all a question of degree.
Gravity of harm --> Paris v Stepney BC suggested that the fact that a partially sighted employee might lose both eyes meant that precautions should have been taken to stop that happening, but likelihood is that now such precautions would be required regardless of the employee's number of eyes (Lunney and Oliphant).
Context --> Consider if it is for social utility (Tomlinson v Congleton; s.1 Compensation Act 2006), if it was an emergency situation (Adams v Lancashire; Baker v TE Hopkins) and if it took place in the context of a game, where specific injuries might be consented to (Blake v Galloway; R v Barnes; Condon v Basi)
Cost of precautions --> Lord Reid in Bolton thought such considerations were inappropriate to consider, but Latimer v AEC suggested they may be pertinent if the cost of precautions would be astronomical compared to the harm that might be caused. However, Palmer v CC suggested this is unlikely to ever be a justification.

You also need to consider specific standards that the defendant might be held to. For example;
Doctors --> Bolam v Friern, with the Bolitho gloss
Employers --> Morton v William Dixon per Lord Dunedin, although no longer strictly followed
Industry standards --> Not usually followed exactly (Tesco v Pollard) and not relevant if a standard *almost* applied (Chipchase v British Titan)
Other professions --> Suggestion that Bolam could apply outside of doctors (Gold v Haringey)
1
reply
SiidraXo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
Thanks for the info , i still dont get which cases i could use for the scenario.
0
reply
hotliketea
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by SiidraXo)
Thanks for the info , i still dont get which cases i could use for the scenario.
... what scenario
0
reply
SiidraXo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
There is a major railway reconstruction project affecting a railway bridge beingundertaken just outside Anytown by Allerton Construction this caused majortailbacks on the road both in and out of Anytown. Ahmed, who was late for work,was becoming increasingly agitated. Watching the dashboard clock, he decidedto pull out of the main traffic queue and drive down the lane which had beencordoned off. The lane looked safe. He was unaware however that the repairswere to the support beams underpinning that section of the road. As he drovealong the lane various people shouted for him to stop. Ignoring these shouts hedrove on. The section of the road gave way under the weight of the car and thecar crashed through onto the railway track below landing on its roof and began toleak petrol.Emergency services were called. Prior to their arrival construction workers wentdown to the crash site to see what they could do. On arrival they could smell thepetrol and all but Sarah, one of the construction workers, backed off. She sentfor sand and began to cover the petrol leakage. During this process althoughthinking about the safety of the driver, she also began to realise that the petrolcould easily ignite and if this occurred she could be killed. This was a terrifyingthought. Just as Sarah completed scattering the sand the emergency servicesarrived. Rashid who was the lead fireman congratulated her on her quick thinkingand asked everyone to back away. At this point Ahmed began shouting for help.Rashid took the decision to assess the situation close up and moved to the petrolsoaked area. He got down on his knees to speak to Ahmed and when he did herealised Ahmed was his brother. Although taken aback he organised a successfulrescue. In the meantime a camera crew arrived and were filming the rescue.Rashid rang Ahmed’s wife Diana and informed her that Ahmed had been involvedin a car crash and to watch the news. This she did and was horrified. Sarah,Rashid and Diana are now all complaining of recurring nightmares, and in the caseof Sara and Rashid flashbacks to the event. Ahmed suffered a broken leg in theaccident and was shaken up.
Advise Sarah, Rashid and Diana of any claims they may have and againstwhom.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (700)
33.9%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (881)
42.66%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (392)
18.98%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (92)
4.46%

Watched Threads

View All