Important Elements of Post-traumatic Stress Disorders - Assignment Example

Question Issue This section examines the important elements of “post-traumatic” stress disorders amongst the members of the Slumber Railway PLC incident. It will examine the rights and obligation of all the parties involved in the four claims at hand Rules The development of the principles of the cases related to the claim of damages for psychological injuries are now recognised. They were not accepted in law in the past. However, as long as a physical or mental injury was foreseeable, an the defendant caused it, then a tortous claim can be made on that premise. In Dulieu V White (1901) it was held that a person may make a claim but the claimant must be within the range of potential physical injury. However, this principle was further developed. In Hanbrook V Stokes (1925) a claim could only be made if : 1. The claimant sees the injury for himself or heard it for himself. 2. Where the person got wind of the information with unaided senses s/he could claim compensation for nervous shock resulting from the fear that others might have been injured. In a case that demonstrated the pattern of events and matters, a pregnant fishwife got nervous shock when information about the injury of her husband was communicated to her (Bourhill V Young, 1943). She went through a shock that was so serious and her claim was upheld because the one delivering the information should have been sensitive to her condition and it was foreseeable before a reasonable person that the delivery of bad news could be detrimental to the health of a woman who was pregnant. In a landmark case of McLoughlin V OBrien (1983), the issue of psychological injury was taken to a different level. The friend of the claimant told the claimant about an accident that involved her husband and three children two hours after it occurred. The defendant then drove her to the hospital where she saw the body of her children in a very horrific manner. As a result of this, she suffered a severe nervous breakdown. She sued for damages for the psychiatric effect of the encounter. The lower courts ruled against the claim. However, the House of Lords identified that there were some factors that gave the claimant a strong case if: 1. There was a close relationship between the plaintiff and the victims and there were close family ties. 2. The defendant must have a close proximity to the accident in time and place. 3. The claimant must have close proximity by sight and hearing in order to attribute the psychological accident to the incident at hand. The claim was therefore upheld and the damages were awarded to the plaintiff. This formed the basis for further decisions that were taken in the case. The issue of psychological injury was tested heavily during the Hillsborough Disaster in 1989. The case was that during a match in Liverpool that was being broadcast live on TV, a riot broke out and a large number of people witnessed it from their homes as they watched the telecast. Many claims for nervous shock and psychological challenges were made. In deciding the case the following pointers were required by claimants: 1. To prove close ties of love and affection with the primary victims. 2. Psychological injury was caused by their own sight or hearing and it should be classed as the “immediate” aftermath. This therefore forms the basic framework and pointers of the situation. However, in the case of Page V Smith (1995), there was a further classification of primary victims who were those who were part of the injury and saw the injury and secondary victims who had to prove that they were reasonably affected by seeing a loved one severely injured and this must have been reasonably foreseeable. Application Case A: Alice In this case, Alice was travelling in the train herself. In that sense, she can be classified as a “Primary Victim” according to the Page V Smith case. This is because she was travelling at the back of the train and she saw the carnage and was traumatised by the train accident. Slumber Railways therefore had a duty of care to avoid causing personal injury. However, they failed to do so and the train driver was negligent. In this case, foreseeability is not an issue. Hence, Alice can claim full compensation for “post-traumatic stress disorder”. Case B: Brian Brian was a member of the emergency team that rescued the victims. He suffered post-traumatic stress disorder because of the fact that she saw the carnage that was left from the scene of the crime. Aside the general pointers that are identified above, there are some intervening factors that relate to professionals carrying out their activities at the scene of an accident before they can be classified as secondary victims. First of all, in the case of Whittle V Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1999), it was held that the police could not claim damages for witnessing horrific incidents in the scene of an injury because they are carrying out a professional duty. This ruling is applicable to a rescuer who might have encountered a horrific incident at the scene of the crime. It seems Brian just operated within the normal confines of his job. And being a professional, he should have been trained or given intervening treatment to prevent the psychological disorder. This implies that Brian cannot claim damages for his psychiatric disorder. The only exception could crop up if he did more than what was required of a normal rescuer. In the case of Hale V London Underground Ltd (1993), because he went beyond the normal requirements of a rescue mission. He put himself in danger by going down a smoke and flame-filled tunnel and this led to the psychological injuries. Since Brian did not do any extraordinary acts, he cannot make a claim for psychological damages. Celia Celia as a nurse at the rescue point cannot make claim under the normal sense, since she is bound by the professional rescue principle. However, after noticing that one of the injured passengers was her son-in-law, she encountered a major stressful situation with her loved one and hence, she can prove that she was a secondary victim. This is because the principle of the Hillsborough disaster indicate that the injury was caused through the sight of the injured person and the person must be a loved one and the injury was caused by unaided sight. So she can qualify as a secondary victim (Page V Smith, 1995). David Was required to identify the body of his teenage son a few hours after the incident. This was a direct sight of the situation and the and it happened immediately which makes it an immediate aftermath (Alock, 1993). Hence, he can claim as a secondary victim because he saw a loved one directly and suffered the psychiatric disorder. Question 2 This question relates to the award of damages and the circumstances that gave rise to the various damages and issues. Rules Basically, a claimant can demand two main classes of damages. The classes have sub classes1: 1. Non-pecuniary loss: The claimant may recover for the injury itself associated with the pain and suffering and/loss of amenity. 2. Pecuniary loss: this is the loss of earning to date of trial, as well as special charges which are general damages which can be claimed speculatively2 or the lost years where life expectancy is reduced by a determinate period3 In order to ensure that the claims of plaintiffs are fair and not excessive, Cardozo CJ stated that “an indeterminate claim for an indeterminate amount or indeterminate time and indeterminate class cannot be granted”4. This means that every claim needs to be defined and the time, class and amount must be stated clearly. In Spartan Steel V Martin & Co, it was identified that a loss of profit that occurred particularly in a given incident is recoverable, but the other possible profits and potential gains cannot be used as the basis for the identification of claims for rewards in a given case. Application In this case, Fred Basset was driving and fell asleep behind the wheels. As a drive, he owed his passengers a duty of care of taking them to their destination safely. However, he breached that duty and he knew or ought to have known the dangers of car accidents. Thus, he was negligent and is liable to damages. However, which of the claims can be upheld by the court and which ones cannot be upheld by the court. Basically, the claims can be made by Belle depending on the related matters. This is because Belle is the only surviving individual from the accident. This is the analysis Financial Support from Timmy Now that Timmy is dead, Belle will be deprived of her right to earn £50,000 per annum which was given to her. Thus, there is a question of whether this amount can be recovered by Belle or not. From the Spartan Steel V Martin case, it was apparent that economic loses that were directly attributed to the incident can be claimed. However, future claims and other speculative demands are not within the range of claimable amounts. Thus, it is conclusive that Belle cannot make a claim for an annual payment of £50,000 since it can be classed as a pure economic loss. This cannot be honoured by the court Belles Injuries and the Dog Breeding Venture Belle cannot work and she has been injured severely. It is therefore apparent that the one who was responsible for the negligence that led to that situation must be held accountable for this. Due to that, Belle can present a claim for non-pecuniary losses which relate to the pain and suffering as well as pecuniary losses which include the losses in money and the losses in revenue. Thus, she can sue for 1. The pain and the suffering she went through as a result of the accident. 2. An annual payment of £15,000 for compensation to cover her inability to breed dogs and 3. Medical expenses and other costs that were incurred in the process. Lady Lady the dog is connected to Belle and hence, Belle can make claims on her behalf. She can successfully recover the expensive veterinary operations that are directly attributable to the accident. Secondly, the claim for the winning the Dog Show could be upheld albeit to a very limited degree of success. First of all, according to the rule of Spartan V Martin, Bell will be estopped from claiming pure economic loss which could include the possible advertising endorsements and other things. However, it might be possible to claim damages to the worth of winning the dog show. Thus, the cost of the prizes for the show is likely to be upheld by the court, but not the £1,000 for puppies and other advertising contracts. Question 3 Issue The main issue with the case is that the fire that broke in an old residential home caused two fatalities due to the failure of the fire rescuers and the ambulance services to arrive at the scene of the accident due to administrative failures. Thus, the quest is to identify if the fire brigades and the ambulance service can be held accountable or not. Rules This is a fundamental rule of the Hendley Byrne V Heller (1964) indicates that: "Where a person is so placed that others could reasonably rely upon his judgement or his skill or upon his ability to make careful inquiry, and a person takes it upon himself to give information or advice to, or allows his information or advice to be passed on to, another person who, as he knows or should know, will place reliance upon it, then a duty of care will arise." This is a general rule that the claimant trusted the defendant and the claimant knew the defendant was relying on him. Finally, the reliance on the defendant was reasonable. This creates a duty of care which must be honoured by the person in whom that confidence is placed. Where it is breached, the injured party is entitled to some degree of compensation and damages can be awarded. In the case of Caparo V Dickman (1990), if a defendant knew that the claimant was relying on him, then there is a close proximity and the concept of neighbourhood can be invoked in the case. In Henderson V Merret (1994), it was held that where a structured agency and sub-agency relationship existed, a relationship could be established and this could lead to the establishment of a case in tort. Application The fire brigade and the ambulance services are both companies that are advertised as being rescue and health service providers respectively. The fire that broke out were within their power to resolve. Hence, they hold some degree of responsibility when called to deal with the situation at hand. According to the Hedley Byrne principle, they were an entity that possessed skills and abilities in the area of medicine and rescue and hence, they had the power and the necessary expertise and equipment to deal with the fire situation that cropped up in the elderly residential home. Noticing that the fire brigade and ambulance service were both entities that were professional, the old peoples home relied on them and called them to come and deal with the situation. This means that they were liable and they had the obligation to deal with the situation at hand. In terms of the proximity and the concept of neighbourhood, both cases qualify under the Caparo V Dickman rule. This is because they relied heavily on the fire brigade and the ambulance service to help them. This is because they both called the two entities on time. However, they failed to turn up in reasonable time to deal with the situation at hand. Intervening Factor Although both the fire brigade and the ambulance service were both within the context of “neighbourhood”, their impact and their implications of actions are not the same. First of all, the ambulance company had to be at the scene of the incident to deal with any eventuality. And due to the rules of proximity, their failure to turn on in the right time led to the death of Mrs. Smith. This is because they could not turn up on the right time. And it can be reasonably inferred that the period between the evacuation was long enough to merit a major case of gross negligence. However, in the case of Mr. Jones, his condition of not reacting to the alarms and evacuation might have contributed to the situation. This is because, in every situation, an individual has an obligation to mitigate losses5. And if the elderly home failed to take any reasonable steps to get the deaf and the disabled in the home to be given any emergency support. In that case, they can cite the case of contributory negligence and failure to mitigate loss as the cause of Mr. Jones death. Conclusion From the case at hand, it appears that the ambulance company will be fully responsible for being negligent in their failure to get to the scene of the disaster on time. This led to the death of Mrs. Smith. However, in the case of the fire brigade company, although they are liable for the loss and the incidents at hand, they can claim some degree of exclusion on the grounds that the elderly home failed to mitigate the law and this was foreseeable. However, they failed to do so. Bibliography Hunt, Martin. Tort Law (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2010) Stuhmcke, Anita. Tort Law (London, Routledge, 2009) Read More