Tort Law - Psychiatric Harm

Due to societal changes in the perception and understanding of mental illness there is now less reticence by the courts to award damages for psychiatric harm. Nevertheless this type of injury must be recognised medically and go beyond mere grief.
Claimants are split between primary and secondary victims.
A primary victim is one who suffers psychiatric harm after being physically injured/put in fear of injury (Page v Smith [1996]) but this zone of danger is interpreted in a narrow fashion (Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2006]). The definition has been expanded in some circumstances to include, for example, rescuers (White v CC of S Yorkshire [1999]).
Secondary victims are witnesses to an injury/situation where a person is put in fear of injury but have to met four criteria before being able to successfully claim:
Not be overly susceptible to psychiatric harm
Bourhill v Young [1983]
Jaensch v Coffey [1984]
Have suffered the harm through shock
North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002]
Have been in physical proximity of the accident/aftermath
“direct, immediate perception” - Alcock v CC of S Yorkshire [1992]
Have enjoyed a close personal/familial relationship with the victim
Extended to fiancés in Alcock but not to rescuers - White v CC of S Yorkshire [1999].
Certain relationships create a duty of care as regards psychiatric harm:
Commercial relationship: Attia v British Gas [1988]
Solicitor/client: Al-Kandari v Brown [1980]
Schools/children: X v Bedfordshire CC [1995]
Doctor/Patient: Re. Organ Retention Group Litigation [2004]
The employer/employee relationship can give rise to a duty but it is dependent on the context and the task that is being undertaken.
An important series of cases on the subject of psychiatric harm involved the Hillsborough disaster and the litigation that followed.
Physical harm is normally self-evident but requires a context specific inquiry into social perceptions of damage (MacFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000]).
Pure economic loss is entirely financial in nature.

[@samirenda]

You sir are the one who actually deserves the "like" and "subscription". Your videos always guide me for a further reading, in order to properly answer an essay question.

[@marcuscleaver]

Thanks very much, that really means a lot!

[@samirenda]

@@marcuscleaver You're more than welcome.

[@pcy0825]

You're videos are the reason I passed my first year

[@taeeba2708]

I like the way you explain things. Straight to the point and very clear. Thank you so much

[@mehreenakbar1355]

Literal lifesaver!! You make so much sense! Thank you for the videos!

[@jamesoneill7413]

Is that the lad? Bloody hero son

[@Junkitup]

Thank You

[@alyy635]

Thank you I can't appreciate more

[@maxinefarrimond9699]

really good. Thank you

[@hypocritereviews9697]

i love your channel i am a law student in Jamaica this was very helpful.Do you have the hard copy of this information

[@kaic-m2865]

how did it go

[@hagopkasparian8070]

The date for the case of Bourhill v Young is incorrect, it should be 1943 instead of 1983.
Your videos are helpful, Thanks

[@marcuscleaver]

Thanks for the correction Hagop, can always rely on you! ;)

[@gcmcbowman1884]

Thanks to education

[@michealagoodier3446]

Enjoy listening to ur videos, if I want to understand something

[@KL-zg7lu]

A psychiatrist isn't supposed to be less sane than a patient.
Why would anyone continue trying to cause harm to a former client, who is also a DV victim? That's how you lose your license and your job.

[@taraarrington2285]

So that would be like telling your psychiatrist that you believe you're under some kind of investigation and people are following you around and they are tipped off that you are under investigation and try to lead you to believe that you are paranoid?

[@KL-zg7lu]

Yes.

[@aysunozcan2516]

Marcus hello. Thanks for this my next assignment is due in March on something similar. Controlled mechanisms to restrict liability when dealing with claims by secondary victims for psychiatric injuries.
Are there any other videos you could recommend? Or books on this? Thanks keep safe

[@eirenex233]

Haha 😂 you don’t happen to be at open university do you? I have the exact same question due in March which is why I’m here as well!!!

[@aysunozcan2516]

@@eirenex233 yep open university Eirene best of luck

[@aysunozcan2516]

@@eirenex233 how did the TMA 4 go?mine😔

[@eirenex233]

Aw I’m sorry you weren’t happy with results 😔 it was a hard topic. I havnt got my results yet - still waiting

[@eirenex233]

Also It was an essay plan - which I think can be tricky as I’m not always sure how much to add!

[@jasondaskalakos3776]

So does Alcock essentially say that psychiatric injury is based of the reasonable person in those circumstances i.e., how would a reasonable police officer have reacted to the harm?

[@annaleedias1258]

Hi, i am a law student. I had a question, can A who has caused physical harm B, then claim for suffering PTSD? and what remedy will he receive?

[@marcuscleaver]

Depends on the circumstances. Check out the principles in Alcock v Chief Constable. That should give you the guidance you need.

[@leookonkwo5065]

@@marcuscleaver I think you should consider "ex turpi causa non oritur actio" for no one should benefit from his or her own wrongful act.

[@omgitsnishaaa]

Is death a physiatric damage/injury?

[@16jaaroudmeisje19]

www