Policy Considerations

Question 1

Floodgates

• McLoughlin
• Alcock

Answer 1

McLoughlin - Facts? Arrived at hospital two hours after road traffic accident which killed her daughter and injured husband & 3 children. Argued she suffered nervous shock. Principle? Allowed her claim on basis that she had come upon ‘immediate aftermath’ of accident.

Alcock - Families of victims of H disaster who suffered psychiatric illness as result of what they saw/happened to loved ones. Some at stadium, others tv/radio, some identified bodies. NO claims successful.

Why contrast between cases? Judicial concerns about opening floodgates for nervous shock claims.

Question 2

Insurance

• Lamb v Camden Borough Council

Answer 2

• Authority for insurance policy consideration.

- Court more likely to find D liable if he has/should have had insurance - has means to pay damages.

Question 3

Deterrence/Maintaining High Standards

Answer 3

• Casswell v Broome

Question 4

Crushing Liability

• Spartan v Steel

Answer 4

Facts? C negligently severed power cable so factory was out of action for 14 hours. D wanted compensation for lost profits. Principle? Not granted - if claims like this allowed, person who caused power cut could end up paying huge/disproportionate amounts of compensation e.g. someone who caused power cut in City of London.

Question 5

Justice

• McFarlane
• White v CC of South Yorkshire

Answer 5

• McFarlane - Facts? M had undergone sterilisation operation and told by hospital no longer need contraception. His wife fell pregnant. Financial strain. Sued hospital for pain and suffering of childbirth and costs of raising child to 18. Principle? Birth of healthy child was a good thing and the reasonable person would not agree they should be compensated. Claim partly failed despite negligent advice of doctor.