primary victims

Question 1

What is the key case that established the modern test for the duty of care owed to primary victims for psychiatric harm?

Answer 1

Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155.

Question 2

According to the test in Page v Smith, what must a defendant have reasonably foreseen for a duty of care to be owed to a primary victim?

Answer 2

That the claimant might suffer physical injury as a result of their negligence.

Question 3

What is the essential first step for any claim of pure psychiatric harm before considering the type of victim?

Answer 3

To ensure the psychiatric harm suffered is a medically recognised illness or a shock-induced physical condition.

Question 4

Will a court typically allow a claim for psychiatric harm based solely on feelings of fear, distress, or mental grief?

Answer 4

No, liability will not arise for these emotions as they are not medically recognised psychiatric illnesses.

Question 5

In Hinz v Berry, a mother witnessed an accident that killed her husband. For which specific harm was her claim successful?

Answer 5

For the depression caused by the shock of witnessing the accident, as this was a medically recognised condition.

Question 6

Why did the claimant’s claims for grief, sorrow, and worry fail in Hinz v Berry?

Answer 6

Because these were classified as normal human emotions, not medically recognised psychiatric illnesses.

Question 7

Besides a medically recognised psychiatric illness, what other type of condition can be the subject of a claim for pure psychiatric harm?

Answer 7

A shock-induced physical condition, for example, a miscarriage or a heart attack.

Question 8

What two things must be ‘material’ for a claim based on a shock-induced physical condition to succeed?

Answer 8

Both the psychiatric injury (the shock) and the resulting physical injury must be ‘material’ damage.

Question 9

In Mazhar Hussain v Chief Constable of West Mercia, why was the claimant’s stress and anxiety, which caused numbness, not considered recoverable damage?

Answer 9

The court held the stress and anxiety were not medically recognised psychiatric illnesses and the physical symptoms were not material damage.

Question 10

The law now recognises conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, ME, and pathological _____ syndrome, which goes beyond normal human emotion.

Answer 10

grief

Question 11

In the context of primary victims, is it necessary for the defendant to have foreseen the possibility of psychiatric harm specifically?

Answer 11

No, it is sufficient to foresee the risk of physical injury; there is no need to foresee psychiatric damage as well.

Question 12

What is the name of the rule, confirmed in Page v Smith, which states that a defendant is liable for the full extent of psychiatric harm, even if the victim had a pre-existing condition?

Answer 12

The ‘thin skull’ rule.

Question 13

If it is established that physical injury to a primary victim was reasonably foreseeable, what principles do the courts then apply?

Answer 13

The courts will apply the normal principles for determining the existence of a duty of care.

Question 14

Why is the legal test of ‘proximity’ generally straightforward to establish for a primary victim?

Answer 14

Because a primary victim is always present at the traumatic event, meaning there is always geographical proximity.

Question 15

If a defendant negligently and foreseeably puts a claimant in fear of their safety, what will the courts likely find regarding the imposition of a duty?

Answer 15

The courts will likely find it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care for any resulting psychiatric damage.

Question 16

What is the first step in the recommended structure for analysing a primary victim claim?

Answer 16

Identify the parties (claimant v defendant) and the tort (negligence).

Question 17

What is the second step in structuring a primary victim claim, concerning the damage suffered?

Answer 17

Identify the loss and ensure the psychiatric harm is medically recognised or is a shock-induced physical condition.

Question 18

What is the third step in the structure for a primary victim claim?

Answer 18

Identify the claimant as a primary victim, using the relevant definition and applying it to the facts.

Question 19

What is the crucial fourth step when analysing the duty of care owed to a primary victim?

Answer 19

To ask whether physical injury was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s negligence.

Question 20

If physical injury was NOT reasonably foreseeable to a primary victim, what is the legal consequence for their claim as a primary victim?

Answer 20

No duty of care will be owed to them as a primary victim.

Question 21

In a novel case with no direct precedent, what is the aim of the courts when deciding whether to impose a new duty of care?

Answer 21

To only develop the law of negligence incrementally.

Question 22

How does a court decide on duty in a novel primary victim case without a clear precedent?

Answer 22

By analogy with existing cases, considering proximity and what is fair, just, and reasonable, within the context of the Caparo criteria.

Question 23

The test for establishing a duty of care for a primary victim is much _____ to satisfy than the Alcock criteria for secondary victims.

Answer 23

easier

Question 24

If a duty of care is established for a primary victim, what are the subsequent elements of the negligence claim that must be considered?

Answer 24

Breach, causation, remoteness, defences and remedies.