ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Psychiatric injury in the law of tort
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ธ.ค. 2017
- A presentation covering the legal approach to the different categories of victim as well as how to approach a scenario question and some area of evaluation. The article mentioned can be found here www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/a-t...
I wish my lecturers presentations were as good as this. I always leave these videos feeling as if everything makes sense. Thank you.
Absolutely brilliant teacher I love every video you've done and you are really encouraging and understanding it's as if I'm in a lecture when you read out information. You also provide extra and additional work and guides for us to draw out which is incredible more than what I've learnt at university. Thankyou so much ! Hull uni year 2 student Lilyth x
Sarah, i must thank you for your super excellent video. Your presentation was on point, clear and precisely concise. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Looked at it 6 times so far. Here is hoping you can do one on Occupier's Liability and possibly Vicarious Liability. Cheers from bright and sunny Trinidad.
Dear Sarah, I wish you were my teacher. Thank you so much for this. I love you from the bottom of my heart. :")
Thank you for this video and the discussion at the end with the PTQ example. It really helped to put things into perspective.
Awesome video. Everything well summarised and so clear and precise. Thank you 👍👍
Sarah, superb video. thank you for sharing.
Absolutely Thank You very much for your clearly explainations and hard work
Amazing video really helped me alot keep up the good work
really brilliant presentation
Thank you, Serah. As a student, I do find this very very usefull. I did subscribe to your channel as well.
Great ! Well explained ! Thank you !
GREAT PIECE OF WORK
Beautiful lecture.
Loved the breakdown thanks
Thank you so much for this
Dear lord, reading these cases is taking me 8+hours each and the reasonable foreseeability ponderings of the law lords makes me feel extremely intellectually inferior and I'm still struggling with primary and secondaries and the reasoning. I'm on white v chief constable start Chadwick tomorrow. Hope this helps! Edit, I completely followed this and know more than I realised, this helped tie up a lot of loose ends. Thank you
Thank you
Excellent!
Best teacher thankyou❤️
you are genius thank u
can you pls also cover economic loss and negligence misstatement thank u but with the example
Hello Sarah,
First of all, thank you for your work. It really help a lot.
I wanted to ask whether Ranjeev could not be a primary victim from the negligence for not maintaining the crane, thereby causing a breach of duty, which resulted from his severe pshiatric disorder, which is reasonably forseeable in case of a major accident, as happened.
Thank you for your reply.
Super Super!
Thank you very much Sarah. I wonder if those rules can also be applied in cases of medical negligence, eg. if a wife/husband suffers psychiatric injuries because of mal treatement of her/his partner (husband/wife) in hospital and after few weeks he/she dies ..
Possibly, but it would have to satisfy the sudden shock requirement in Sion v Hampstead Health Authority. It may be difficult to prove that it wasn't a slow dawning of appreciation
Hi, would it not be that Rajeev would qualify as a Primary victim under unwilling active participant? Where he believed he was the cause of another injury or death when in fact was by fault of another? Dooley v Cammel Laird & Co Ltd [1951]
Exactly what I had written and the case I referred to.
Look at Monk v Harrington (you will need to find the citation as I don't have it in front of me) for comparison
This was my exact reasoning.
Thoroughly enjoyed your video. Currently writing my dissertation on this subject matter. The law has evolved very little since the Coultas case (Australian Privy court) in the late 1800's. The control mechanisms introduced in Alcock are very dated and served one purpose only, to limit the floodgates. I'm approaching this from the viewpoint that psychiatric harm and physical harm are entirely different areas and should be treated so. I seek to examine the extent to duty of care, looking at the neighbour principle and how far that may extend. The law needs to progress away from harm caused to a persons psyche after physical injury and culpability introduced for psychiatric harm caused by one party to another where there is proven liability. There needs to be a proven link but I would like to see a move away from primary/secondary/rescuer status and to concentrate more on causal links. It is a very tricky area involving the dissection of legal systems from around the globe to build a new principle. It was good to listen to your video in the background as it just took me right back to basics and kind of reminded me of what I am trying to achieve. My interest here was sparked by the case of Monk v Harrington.
One day before exam. And here i am.
What about negligence of a tharapist..
They could be the defendant for the purposes of psychiatric injury but only towards a primary victim, it's hard to think of a scenario where it could be a secondary victim or rescuer
I just confuse on this one part. Does the primary victim need to be injured/death in order for the secondary victim to claim for the psychiatrist injury??
The secondary victim need only to fear for the safety of another but the requirement of close physical proximity or coming across the immediate aftermath would make it difficult for their loved one not to be hurt in some way.
@@SarahHarwood I need to handle this one case for mock trial. The facts under this case is that the hospital had negligently switching the plaintiff baby only for few hours and she got the baby back from the hospital on the same day the event occurred. the plaintiff subsequently claim for ptsd due to the baby switching and afraid to be pregnant again (with the facts that the baby is in good health when the switching happened and the mother aware of this). I'm truly confuse on this matter with the facts that the baby was healthy when the event occurred and the mother was aware of this.
@@irsyadhassan151 I'm assuming we're talking about UK law - you could possibly argue the mother, as the claimant, fearing for the safety of the baby and perceiving it with her own unaided senses.
NOW IS WALMART NEGLIGENT
Amen.