fefelabelle55
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
I’m struggling with a problem q. There was an accident witnessed by a Lady who was 8 months pregnant. Following this she had a stillborn child. I think she is too remote? Can anyone help? Thanks
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
(Original post by fefelabelle55)
I’m struggling with a problem q. There was an accident witnessed by a Lady who was 8 months pregnant. Following this she had a stillborn child. I think she is too remote? Can anyone help? Thanks
Causation, anyone?
0
reply
LaPregunta
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 months ago
#3
(Original post by fefelabelle55)
I’m struggling with a problem q. There was an accident witnessed by a Lady who was 8 months pregnant. Following this she had a stillborn child. I think she is too remote? Can anyone help? Thanks
If the case is Bourhill v Young (1943) then I am entirely certain it is too remote. As this case predates Caparo v Dickman (1990) its rulin was based on the neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) - the neighbour principle.

The neighbour principle can be broken in half to constitute a test to find whether someone broke their duty of care:

1) Harm was reasonably foreseeable
2) A relationship of proximity

(1) The House of Lords held that the motorcyclist could not anticipate that his bein involved in an accident, would cause a mental injury - the harm was not reasonably foreseeable.

(2) The motorcyclist was not proximate to Mrs Bourhill - they were strangers - and, consequently, she was not owed a duty of care.

Hope this makes sense
Last edited by LaPregunta; 4 months ago
0
reply
MidgetFever
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
You haven't really provided enough context, but I can already see it's probably hinting towards the Bourhill v Young case..
0
reply
IpsaLoquitur
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
Depends on whether a duty of care is owed to her and what kind. If she is owed a duty as a primary victim (ie she was in in the danger zone) then its not too remote - physical injury is obviously foreseeable and that is all a primary victim has to show.

If she is owed a duty as a secondary victim, it may be too remote. The stillbirth is technically a physical injury not a psychiatric one - mothers and foetuses are treated as the same entity in law, so the death of the foetus is technically physical injury to the mother. So while normally secondary victims need to show that psychiatric harm was foreseeable, this woman has the option or trying to show that either physical injury or psychiatric injury is foreseeable. Can't say which would be easier without more context.

If she is neither a primary or secondary victim, then no duty is owed so remoteness is irrelevant.
0
reply
fefelabelle55
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#6
(Original post by IpsaLoquitur)
Depends on whether a duty of care is owed to her and what kind. If she is owed a duty as a primary victim (ie she was in in the danger zone) then its not too remote - physical injury is obviously foreseeable and that is all a primary victim has to show.

If she is owed a duty as a secondary victim, it may be too remote. The stillbirth is technically a physical injury not a psychiatric one - mothers and foetuses are treated as the same entity in law, so the death of the foetus is technically physical injury to the mother. So while normally secondary victims need to show that psychiatric harm was foreseeable, this woman has the option or trying to show that either physical injury or psychiatric injury is foreseeable. Can't say which would be easier without more context.

If she is neither a primary or secondary victim, then no duty is owed so remoteness is irrelevant.
Hi she was walking on the pavement so witnessed the accident and became stressed so a secondary victim. Surely this is too remote otherwise the courts would be inundated with people claiming thanks 🙃
0
reply
IpsaLoquitur
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 months ago
#7
You want to look at the Alcock case. Its important to go through the steps of negligence in order - you are asking about remoteness when you haven’t even established a duty of care, breach and causation yet. This case would likely fail at the duty stage (so there would be no need to consider remoteness), since she is a secondary victim who shares no tie of love and affection with people involved in the accident.
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

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (205)
33.39%
No (409)
66.61%

Watched Threads

View All