Secondary Victims | Law of Tort

#law #education #learning
The Law Academy is a project designed to provide legal education for students studying law in the UK. Subscribe for more content.
- K. Horsey & E. Rackley, Tort Law (Oxford University Press, 2023)
- C. Brennan, Tort Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide (Oxford University Press, 2021).
- S. Green & J. Gardner, Tort Law (Red Globe Press, 2021).
- P. Giliker, Tort (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2023).
The law of tort in the United Kingdom is a branch of civil law that deals with civil wrongs or injuries caused by one party to another. It provides a legal framework for individuals to seek compensation for harm or loss suffered as a result of someone else's actions or omissions.
Tort law covers a wide range of situations, including negligence, intentional harm, and strict liability. Negligence is a central concept in tort law and involves the failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person. To establish a claim of negligence, the injured party must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused foreseeable harm.
In addition to negligence, tort law also recognizes intentional torts, which involve deliberate acts that cause harm, such as assault, battery, and defamation. Strict liability is another important aspect of tort law, whereby a party can be held liable for harm caused, regardless of fault or intent.
Tort law in the UK is primarily based on common law principles, which means that it is developed through judicial decisions rather than legislation. However, there are also statutory provisions that govern specific areas of tort law, such as the Defamation Act 2013 and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.
Overall, the law of tort aims to provide a legal framework for individuals to seek redress for harm suffered, while also promoting the principles of fairness, justice, and accountability.
Disclaimer:
At no point are these video lessons intended to provide any sort of legal advice. These are for educational purposes only!
Image(s) Copyright: This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

[@DonYutuc]

Awesome information although I have to focus on California law for now.

[@MrittikaReza]

someone not experienced(C) goes to mountain climbing with 2 other experienced climbers. They were given faulty equipment, however they were not aware of it. So when C reaches the top, considerably a safe zone, one of climbers falls and get head injury. Now the relationship between C and and injured person is just friend. After this incident C starts to get nightmares and anxiety. So his councillor asks him to go for therapy. Now later he states that “it could easily been him who’s equipment gave away” . So was he in immediate danger? Will he be considered primary or secondary victim? What do you think

[@andyt9677]

The cause of the trauma here is key. The claimant has anxiety because he feels that he could've been the one whose equipment gave way; this makes him the primary victim. To be the secondary victim, he must be experiencing anxiety because of the injury that happened to his friend which, in the example, is not the cause of his anxiety.
First we would have to establish negligence against the two experienced climbers, that is, we must prove that they had a legal duty of care, breached that duty, and caused damage due to that breach. Once we have done this, we know that the claimant has experienced a psychiatric illness due to this breach, anxiety, so he would be eligible for a claim for psychiatric injury.
He would pass the test for secondary victimhood if his anxiety was coming from the witnessing of the act. He was friends with the defendant, he was proximate to the event, and the shock came through his senses. However, because the cause of the anxiety was that he was put into a potentially dangerous situation not because he viewed a traumatic act, he wouldn't be a secondary victim.
On a side note, if this was a real case, I think that it would be hard to prove negligence on the part of the friend(D). The friend had a duty of care to not harm the claimant potentially as he had more experience and was helping his unexperienced friend. However, one could argue that there is an assumption of risk when you go rock climbing for the first time with someone who is not a licensed or qualified rock climbing instructor. The claimant could have rock climbed in an indoor space first, or hired a regulated instructor help them learn.
Additionally, the friend(D) did uphold their duty of care towards their friend(C) by securing their(C) rock climbing equipment correctly. Does the duty of care extend beyond that? When deciding duty of care, we must consider if the damage was foreseeable, if there was a sufficient amount of proximity, and if the duty is reasonable and fair. In this case, I do not think it is reasonable or fair for the friend(D) to have a duty of care to ensure that the claimant is secured AND ensure that they themselves(D) are secured in order to avoid trauma to C. The friend is not a licensed climbing instructor and the claimant took on an assumption of risk by going rock climbing for the first time without a licensed climbing instructor and on a high cliff as opposed to in an indoor climbing gym where it would be much safer.