Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care? Proximity between C & D?

Page v Smith Foreseeability of physical rather than psychiatric harm is enough Cullin v London Fire C witnessed his colleagues trapped inside a burning fire. He was qualified as a primary victim, because he tried to save them, thus exposing himself to the danger White v CC of S.Yorkshire POs, removing dead bodies in the Hillsborough tried to claim that they were primary victims because they rescued people. Damage reasonably foreseeable? Existing authority

Alcock Seeing victims on the TV and having to identify dead bodies doesnt constitute an appropriate manner of reception Reilly v Merseyside Court refused to compensate unpleasant experience of a couple trapped in a lift for an hour Vernon v Bosley Grief or bereavement may be classified as a positive psychiatric illness if its pathological and goes beyond normal human emotion McLoughlin v OBrian Positive psychiatric illness sufficed as nervous shock Sion v Hampstead HA Psychiatric condition developed gradually over the longer period wont succeed. W v Essex CC It was held that learning of the accident, without actually witnessing will suffice.

W v Essex CC Claimants took sexually abusive foster child. After 4 weeks he caused them psychiatric injury. Claim succeeded McLoughlin Only two hours passed between the accident and shock of the C Alcock One of the claimant didnt see his relative until 9 hours later. Claim failed Greatorex v Greatorex Claim wont succeed if the victim for whose safety C feared is a defendant. Farther saw his son injured Alcock Parent/child, spouse, lovers relationships are sufficiently close Hambrook v Strokes Bros Mother suffered nervous shock after witnessing a lorry heading towards her children Bourhill v Young Although the speeding motorcyclist could foresee physical harm to other road users, he couldnt foresee psychiatric

Hinz v Berry Depression held to be a kind of nervous shock

Manner of perception (unaided senses)

Proximity in time and space

Caparo v Dickman 3 Stage Test for duty of care (Incremental approach)

Nervous shock must be a medically recognized form of psychiatric illness

Recognised psychiatric illness

Relationship of love and affection of C&V

Test McFarlane v EE Caledonia Established the test for a bystander to be able to recover damage for nervous shock Was in the area Or Came into it later as a rescuer Or Reasonably though he was in danger Chadwick v British Railways C, helping to rescue victims from a horrific rail crash was treated as a primary victim because he feared for his own safety Page v Smith C suffered no physical injury but psychological effect of the car crash caused by D worsened his ill condition.
Applicable to secondary victims too

Bystanders and rescuers

Primary victim Fears for himself

Duty of care: NERVOUS SHOCK

Secondary victim Fears for people close to him

Test

Alcock v CC of S.Yourshire Established test for the duty of care to a secondary victim

Categories were established in Alcock v CC South Yorkshire

Dulieu v White A pregnant woman miscarried a child after the D crashed negligently crashed into a pub where she was working.

McLoughlin v OBrian C was informed that he family was injured, she came to the hospital and witnessed the immediate aftermath of an event.

Alcock v CC South Yorkshire The Hillsborough disaster witnesses feared for their relatives, not for themselves

Foreseeability of psychiatric damage

R v Hayward Thin skull rule.