1
Q
1.Law takes…
A
A restrictive approach
2
Q
2.was there psychiatric damage
A
A recognised psychiatric illness not: grief, shock, fear or emotional distress
Reilly v Merseyside
3
Q
- Was the psychiatric injury caused by the Ds negligence
A
😎✌️
4
Q
A primary victim is someone who:
A
Is involved directly in an accident
Is a rescuer
Near misser ‘zone of danger’
5
Q
A secondary victim is:
A
Not in personal physical danger but who witnessed the accident
-close ties of love and affection; injury must occur at the scene or in the immediate aftermath
6
Q
no longer used
Rules in Alcocks case for secondary victims
A
Proximity
Seen with own unaided senses
Sudden
Claimant must be of reasonable fortitude
No claim can be made if the victim of an accident was the person who caused the accident
7
Q
development in the tort of law
A
(paul, polmer and purchase)
- have close ties of love and affection
- be present at the scene
- have percieved the accident themselves
- it is sufficient for a claimant who was present at the scene of the accident to show that there is a casual conectio between witnessing that even and illness suffered
- no requirment to experience a sudden and unexpected shock
