seelawperson
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
-----
Last edited by seelawperson; 1 year ago
0
reply
username3689312
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Before you establish if the claimant falls under primary or secondary, you need to establish firstly there is a duty of care, and if so has it been breached, then you can talk about primary/secondary victim then causation.

Also asking how much to write is liking asking me how long is a piece of string. How much you write is all about context, you write what you need to write.
0
reply
username3689312
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by seelawperson)
For this scenario, I would firstly evaluate that both David and Georgina might be secondary victims, if they fulfil the Alcock test.I am not sure how to go about establishing breach and causation (especially for G, how do I establish causation?). Also, how much do I have to write for breach and causation, can it just be 3 about sentences?

Is there a need for defences/remedies?

Thanks!
Again as said there is no definite amount you need to write, you write what you need to. Establishing causation you just apply the ordinary rules of causation. Firstly, have you been taught about defences and remedies and if you have do you think they apply?
0
reply
chris2791
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
in order for David (D) and Georgina (G) to make a successful claim for psychiatric injury they will need to be suffering from a recognisable psychiatric injury - not just "grief and sorrow" as per the case of White v Chief Constable however, its very hard to distinguish between the 2 (Vernom v Bosley) therefore, a medical report will need to be established. in our scenario Both G & D have suffered from "post traumatic stress disorder" which one may assume is a psychiatric illness but its very difficult to distinguish between grief and sorrow for therefore, a medical report will be needed.

in relations to D is a secondary victim as he fears for the safety of others - suffering psychiatric injury a duty could be argued to have been owed to D from Fundays under the 3 part Caparo test: it is foreseeable if you have a faulty harness someone can fall out causing injury - D is in proximity to the catastrophy as he is in a physical entity to seeing his son fall out and it is fair just an reasonable to owe a duty of care to D. Breach then applies but for the faulty harness, the harness wouldn't have broken dropping the child (Barrnett) and the legal causation is also approved as the injuries are a type that is foreseeable from the breach therefore the injuries not too remote from the breach (wagon mount) therefore, a Alcock mechanism apply:
1) the claimant has close ties and affections with the victim in our story this follows the similar legal reasoning as the case of Handbrook v Stoks where a parent feared the safety of a child - here D feared the safety of his child
2) the claimant must perceive the event with their undaided senses or witness the immediate after mass (M'couglin) here both factors apply as D sees his son fall from the roller coaster and E is in the "original state as the time of his injury"
3) It is foreseeable if you see your child fall from a rollercoaster you will suffer psyciatruic injury (Dileu v White) D is of normal fortitue (Page v Smith) and the psychiatric injury is caused suddenly (Sion v Hampsted Heath)

D claim will succeed

this is how it should be layed out

(Original post by seelawperson)
David takes his young son Eddie to a local theme park, Fundays. David takes Eddie on the
Fright-of-your-life roller coaster. Owing to negligent maintenance by Fundays the harness
holding Eddie breaks and he plunges to the ground suffering massive injuries. Georgina
sees the fall and the injuries to Eddie. She now suffers from post traumatic stress disorder.


Advise David and Georgina on any actions they may have against Fundays for
their injuries.

For this scenario, I would firstly evaluate that both David and Georgina might be secondary victims, if they fulfil the Alcock test.I am not sure how to go about establishing breach and causation (especially for G, how do I establish causation?). Also, how much do I have to write for breach and causation, can it just be 3 about sentences?

Is there a need for defences/remedies?

Thanks!
0
reply
chris2791
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Facts
The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for the psychiatric harm they had suffered as a result of witnessing the tragedy first-hand. It was not disputed that D was negligent or, indeed, that this had caused nervous shock to C. The Court of Appeal had previously found in favour of C and D appealed to the House of Lords.
Issues
This case raised two principal questions. Firstly, it fell to be determined whether an employer owed a duty of care to protect their employees from psychiatric injuries they may incur in the course of their employment. Secondly, C argued that they fell within the ambit of ‘primary’ victims, and should thus be permitted to succeed with an ordinary claim in negligence. The House of Lord were thus called upon to revisit the distinction between primary and secondary victims set out in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire ([1992] 1 AC 310).
Held
D was under a duty to take reasonable steps to protect his employees from the risk of physical harm, but there was no extension of this duty to protect C from psychiatric harm when they were not exposed to any risk of physical injury. Thus, there could be no duty of care owed to C for purely psychiatric harm, as they were not at any point in any physical danger. Moreover, a rescuer in relation to whom physical injury was not reasonably foreseeable could not recover damages for psychiatric injury sustained by witnessing, or participating in the aftermath of, an accident which had caused death or injury to others; such rescuers were to be categorised as secondary victims, and so would have to meet the conditions specified by Lord Oliver in Alcock.
(Original post by seelawperson)
THANKS!!!

can you explain the White case? I thought its only for police officers?
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

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (288)
55.81%
I don't have everything I need (228)
44.19%

Watched Threads

View All