Question 1

Match For each of the following cases, match the case name to the correct date (AC citation).
-Page v Smith

Accepted Answer

Page v Smith [1995] AC 200 is a landmark case in English tort law concerning the test for establishing causation in negligence, particularly in cases involving psychiatric harm.

Question 2

Match For each of the following cases, match the case name to the correct date (AC citation).
-White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

Accepted Answer

White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police was decided in 1999.

Question 3

Match For each of the following cases, match the case name to the correct date (AC citation).
-Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

Accepted Answer

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police is a case from 1994.

Question 4

Match For each of the following cases, match the case name to the correct date (AC citation).
-McLoughlin v O'Brian

Accepted Answer

McLoughlin v O'Brian is a landmark case in English tort law, specifically in the area of negligence and duty of care, which was decided in 1982.

Question 5

According to Lord Steyn in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] the law in relation to recovery for negligently inflicted pure psychiatric harm is ' a ________ quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify'.

Accepted Answer

The answer of According to Lord Steyn in White v...

Question 6

Why does the law distinguish psychiatric injury from physical injury?
Please select all that apply.

Accepted Answer

The law distinguishes psychiatric injury from physical injury due to several reasons. One of the reasons is the difficulty in distinguishing between mere grief and psychiatric illnesses, which can lead to an increase in claims. Another reason is to avoid potential unfairness to the defendant of imposing damages out of all proportion to the negligent conduct. Additionally, limiting recovery for psychiatric injury can avoid the disincentive effect of potential compensation awards on potential claimants. However, the notion that physically injuring someone is worse than causing them psychiatric harm is not a reason for the legal distinction between the two types of injuries.

Question 7

Which of the following is not necessary in order to establish a duty of care under the so-called Alcock control mechanisms?

Accepted Answer

The 'zone of danger' is not a requirement under the Alcock criteria for establishing a duty of care in cases of psychiatric harm. The Alcock control mechanisms focus on the relationship to the primary victim, the direct perception of the event, and proximity in time and space, rather than the claimant being in physical danger themselves.

Question 8

In which case did Lord Lloyd say the following?
'Once it is established that the defendant is under a duty of care to avoid causing personal injury to the claimant, it matters not whether the injury in fact sustained is physical or psychiatric or both …'

Accepted Answer

This statement was made by Lord Lloyd in the case of Page v Smith, which established the principle that once a duty of care is established, the type of injury (physical or psychiatric) does not matter for liability purposes.

Question 9

It is a well-established principle of law that a defendant owes a duty of care to those who suffer purely psychiatric injuries as a result of going to the rescue of another.

Accepted Answer

Although Lord Oliver recognized in Alcock the 'well-established' principle that a defendant owes a duty of care to those 'induced to go to the rescue' of those imperil as a result of their negligence, in White these sentiments collided with the lordships' inclination to limit recovery for pure psychiatric harm. Relying on Lord Lloyd's interpretation of a primary victim in Page as necessarily needing to be (or believing themselves to be) in physical danger, the majority in White held that to accord any special status to rescuers would require the 'unwarranted extension' of the category of primary victim.

Question 10

By whom was it said that the law in relation to recovery for pure psychiatric harm was so far beyond judicial repair that 'the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further?'

Accepted Answer

Lord Steyn made this statement regarding the law on recovery for pure psychiatric harm, suggesting that it was beyond judicial repair and that the courts should limit further expansion.

Question 11

Which case is Lord Goff drawing an analogy with in the following extract from White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police?
'Suppose that there was a terrible train crash and that there were two … brothers living nearby, both of them small and agile window cleaners distinguished by their courage and humanity. Mr A … worked on the front half of the train, and Mr B … on the rear half. It so happened that, although there was some physical danger present in the front half of the train, there was none in the rear. Both worked for 12 hours or so bringing aid and comfort to the victims. Both suffered PTSD in consequence of the general horror of the situation. On the new control mechanism now proposed, Mr A would recover but Mr B would not. To make things worse, the same conclusion must follow even if Mr A was unaware of the existence of the physical danger present in his half of the train. This is surely unacceptable'.

Accepted Answer

Lord Goff is drawing an analogy with Chadwick v British Railways Board, where a volunteer who helped in the aftermath of a train crash was able to claim for psychiatric harm despite not being in physical danger himself, highlighting the inconsistency in the application of the law regarding secondary victims and psychiatric harm.

Question 12

According to what they said, why did the court allow the claimant's claim in Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd?

Accepted Answer

The court allowed the claim because the claimant was considered an unwitting agent, meaning he was involved in the incident without intention and suffered psychiatric harm as a result.

Question 13

Occupational stress is not recoverable in the tort of negligence.

Accepted Answer

It is well established following Walker v Northumberland County Council that employees who suffer psychiatric harm as a result of their employment are able to recover in negligence.

Quiz 5: Special Duty Problems: Psychiatric Harm

Match For each of the following cases, match the case name to the correct date (AC citation) . -Page v Smith

Match For each of the following cases, match the case name to the correct date (AC citation) . -White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

Match For each of the following cases, match the case name to the correct date (AC citation) . -Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

Match For each of the following cases, match the case name to the correct date (AC citation) . -McLoughlin v O'Brian