Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Pete could be liable for the psychiatric injury suffered by Alan. The term psychiatric injury, 'denotes a traumatic response to an act'[1], which in this case is the recurrence of depression suffered by Alan.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Tue Mar 09 2004
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
(a) Pete could be liable for the psychiatric injury suffered by Alan. The term psychiatric injury, 'denotes a traumatic response to an act'1, which in this case is the recurrence of depression suffered by Alan. However before Alan can claim, he has to establish on the basis of medical evidence that he has suffered a definite psychiatric injury. Alan is a primary victim as he is a participant in the incident which gives rise to the negligence action. As in Page v Smith2 Alan sustains minor injuries caused by Pete's negligent driving but no physical injury, although he does start suffering a recurrence of the depression he suffered three years earlier. The key principle in Dulieu3 was where psychiatric injury was sustained through fear for the plaintiff's own safety, there was no need for physical impact to establish a claim. The question will therefore be whether it is upon Alan...
To see the full version of this document, and 145,348 others
