Hi, having trouble understanding the question and how it applies, stressing out if anyone could help that would be great
In the Supreme Court:
Large and Others - v – Harris
Alex Harris (the Respondent in this matter), a professional snooker player, is outraged by an eighteen month ban from tournament snooker imposed upon him by the sport's governing body. He decides to make a protest at the finals of the 2011 World Snooker Championships. During the evening session which is being broadcast live to an estimated audience of nine million people, Alex rushes from the audience holding a huge home-made firework. Lighting its fuse, he announces that "This protest is to highlight the vicious and unjustified ban imposed upon me, the People's Champion, and to remind the viewing public that, in these days of automated, acne-ridden clones who masquerade as players, I am the one person still capable of producing fireworks on a snooker table." Having tragically mistimed his speech, the firework explodes whilst he still holds it, and Alex is engulfed in flames. He dies in hospital five days later.
Mandy Large, a model, is in the audience and witnesses the whole shocking event. Until five weeks ago, she was Alex's girlfriend and is pregnant with his child. As a consequence of what she sees, Mandy suffers psychiatric damage and miscarries.
Nessie Harris, Alex's mother, is watching the event at home. She also suffers psychiatric damage.
Chin Deshi, an off-duty fireman, who rushed from the audience to try to extinguish Alex, also suffers psychiatric damage.
At trial, Hobbit J says that he has the following opinions:
• the psychiatric damage suffered by Mandy would not have been suffered by an observer who was not pregnant and that there is thus no need to consider the proximity of her relationship to the deceased;
• that Nessie was not in sight or sound of the accident;
• that Chin, as a fireman, could not reasonably be foreseen to suffer psychiatric damage in such circumstances as he should have shown sufficient fortitude to withstand any suffering.
Accordingly, Hobbit J gives judgment to the Harris estate on the following grounds:
Point 1 - That there is no duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric damage attached to the negligent infliction of injury to oneself and that there is no duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric damage arising from a particular susceptibility of a claimant;
Turn on thread page Beta
Mooting question help! watch
- Thread Starter
- 23-02-2018 00:02
Hello, I am currently dealing with the same mooting question right now. Seeing that it has been some time for you, is there any thing you can help me with on the side of the appellant? Especially on the first point in question. I can't seem to find any case laws to tie this to in proving duty of care. Any help/advice would be much appreciated.