Torts nervous shock 1

TORTS FLOWCHARTS

1. NERVOUS SHOCKNERVOUS SHOCK
Nervous Shock has no definite
definition. It is known as `any recognisable
psychiatric illness caused by the breach of duty by
the defendant ( Hinz v Berry).
It is not an ordinary grief sorrow or anxiety which
occurs in normal incidents in life.
Development of Nervous Shock
INITIAL STAGE
At the earlier stage the courts
reject liability for nervous shock
becox
i.it is difficult to diagnosis ,not
like physical injury.
ii. it is normal for human to be
expose to such shock.
Victoria Railway Comm. V
Coultas (mere sudden shock
unaccompanied by actual
physical injury cannot claim)
Dulieu v White (N.S produced
by fear of immediate phisical
injury to oneself can claim.)
FIRST EXPANSION
Court develop that damages for nervous
shock can be claimed if it is reasonably
foreseeable that someone closely
connected to victim will suffer N.S.
Bourhill v Young
(a pregnant lady after aligthning from a
tramcar hear noise of collision and after
the accident she went to the spot,saw
blood spot and got shock.Ct denied her
claim becox it was not reasonably
foreseeable that someone not closely
connected to the victim would suffer N.S.)
Hambrook v Stokes Bros.
( a mother succeded in recovering
damages for nervous shock produced not
for her own safety but for her children`s
safety.
A lorry w/out driver running voilently down
near her children and she got shock becoz
didn`t see her child.)
Zainab Bt. Ismail v Marimuthu & Anor
(a mother saw her daughter was runned
down by a lorry.Held it is reasonably
forseable that the mother will suffer shock
and awarded the claim.The onlyy local
reported case)
SECOND EXPANSION
Ear shot doctrine
Near relatives who might not have
witnesses the accident but was
within `earshot’ (vicinity) and
likely to come upon the scene.In
such a situation the claimant can
claim for Nervous Shock.
Broadman v Sanderson( D
injured a young boy while
negligently backing his car out of
a garage.The father heard scream
and ran to his son rescue.
Successfully claim.)
Hinz v Berry (a mother witnessed
a horrifying and tragic accident to
her family from the other side of
the road. OK).
THIRD EXPANSION
Aftermath Doctrine
Witnessed the immediate
aftermath of an accident in the
hospital and suffers N.S can
recover claim becox it
isreasonably forseable the
consequence of D`s negligence
eventhough it is not within the
sight and hearing.
Mc Loughlin v O Brian
( a mother who stay 2 mile away
who heard an accident of her
family from neigbour when to
Hospital and saw her daughter
has died and other children and
her husband was upset with the
death .She suffers nervous
shock. HOLs awarded the
claim . The above ruling was
made.)
Jaensch v Coffey
( P suffered N. S after seeing
the effects of an accident on her
husband at hosiptal. She was
awarded damages. The Court
further held that immediate
aftermath includes:
i.being at the scene after
accident
ii. seeing treatment at hosiptal)
FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT
Witnessing events on television
at home or heard from radio.
The HOL rejected such claim it
does not satisfie the
Requirement of proximity.
However it is not totally rulled
out.
Alcock v Chief Constable of
the South Yorkshire Police
(P (16) people suffered N.S. in
the aftermath of a tragedy which
occurred at a stadium where 95
spectators were crushed to
death and over 400 were injured
at a major football match.The
disaster was covered life in
radio and tv.i.some watch the
incident from other siide of
scene
ii. some watched in tv at home
iii. others heard from radio or
from friends or recorded
pictures in tv.
Trial Judge allow the first 2
claimants but rejected the third
one.
COA: on the issue of witnessing
event in tv dismiss the claim
becox it does not satisfy the
requirement of proximity.
But on appeal, the HOLs
dismissed all the claims.)