The Case Involving Duty of Care - Assignment Example

Obligations Introduction Rocket, a much flaunted high speed train, jumped the rails and careened onto the platform killing several of the onlookers, during its maiden trip. This derailment was attributed to a broken section of the railway track. For evaluating the rights of the various affected parties of this scenario, the following discussion has to be undertaken. Catalina Catalina hurdled a wall upon espying the derailed train, with the intention of circumventing physical injury. However, she found it impossible to work after that event, due to the development of depression. The decision in previous cases had been utilised by the courts, as a standard for deciding a case involving duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman,1 a test was established, which was thereafter applied by the courts. This test was applied, whilst considering the proximity of the relationship, foreseeability of the harm, and the reasonableness of imposing a duty of care.2 On occasion, negligence could be the immediate cause of an injury, of which it was not the direct or exclusive reason. Frequently, the negligence of the defendant could coincide with some other occurrence to result in injury to the plaintiff. Furthermore, it could be evident that the injury had directly resulted from the negligence. Moreover, these circumstances could have been intimately related with the injury to the plaintiff in the sequence of events. Under these conditions, the courts would regard the defendant as being guilty. This hold true, despite the negligent act not being the proximate cause in the succession of time. 3 In Page v Smith, 4 the claimant had been suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome for several years. The claimant had been undergoing psychiatric treatment for this condition, when the negligent driving of the defendant resulted in a minor accident, in which he was inadvertently involved.5 Despite the absence of any physical injury to the claimant, this mishap served to activate his myalgic encephalomyelitis. The gravity of this development was such that the syndrome achieved a chronic character, which prevented the claimant from resuming his teaching duties. 6 Their Lordships ruled that as long as some form of personal injury was predictable, it was immaterial whether the actual injury was somatic or psychological. Moreover, it was irrelevant that the average individual would not have undergone the injury sustained by the claimant. Specifically, as stated by Lord Lloyd, the defendant had to take his victim as he found him. After that the trial court’s award of £162,000 in damages was upheld. 7 As such, in Page v Smith,8 the House of Lords rendered it unnecessary to establish that the psychiatric injury, caused to the primary victims of negligence, had been plausibly anticipatable by the tortfeasor. All that was required to be established was that the personal injury was reasonably foreseeable, as a corollary to cavalier comportment. 9 This decision impressed upon the British drivers the necessity to reasonably foresee that physical injury to the other users of roads was the outcome of irresponsible driving. Moreover, it was clarified that such driving would render them liable to accident casualties for the imposition of genuine psychological trauma. In other words, there would be no necessity for physical injury to have transpired to render such drivers liable. Similarly in our problem, Catalina can claim damages for her psychiatric injury resulting in her failure to work due to depression. Darnell – Severe Depression after viewing TV Darnell was avidly watching the TV at the time of the incident, as his wife was travelling on this high speed trip. He was so severely traumatised by the disaster that he developed severe depression. In order to succeed in a claim, the affected individual has to establish that his senses had been subjected to a shock that had produced a recognised psychiatric condition. In Allin v City & Hackney HA,10 the court classified post – traumatic stress disorder as a psychiatric condition. Similarly, in Brice v Brown,11 personality changes were deemed to be instances of psychiatric injury. These developments have to fall back upon medical evidence, in order to persuade the court about their existence and the degree to which they have harmed the capacity of the claimant to pursue a normal life. 12 In a sequence of cases their Lordships deliberated upon the issue of proximity. These cases had arisen in the aftermath of the Hillsborough football stadium disaster. The judiciary had been seized with preventing a veritable flood of cases and accordingly certain restrictions and checks were imposed by them. These controls pertained to who could successfully claim for psychiatric injury.13 During this terrible tragedy, several people had been crushed to death, and live coverage of this event had been made available on the TV and radio. Several of the relatives, in the football ground, listening over the radio or watching on the TV developed psychiatric illness, due to this disaster. A large number of these affected persons, decided to claim for nervous shock from the police.14 These claims were rejected by the Law Lords, who held that those who had witnessed these horrendous scenes had been too remote from the incident and that the images had lacked sufficient clarity to ensure identification of the victims. Similarly, in our problem, Darnel had developed severe depression after viewing the incident in TV. As per the discussed case law, Darnel had been too remote from the distressing incident, to claim damages for psychiatric illness. Joy Joy’s daughter had been one among the several casualties of the Rocket fiasco. Subsequent to identifying the mortal remains of her daughter in the mortuary, Joy descended into a deep shock. The limitation introduced in Dulieu v White & Sons,15 was extended to encompass fear of injury to close relatives. In that case, the Court of Appeal had ruled that psychiatric injury was actionable, only when it arose from the reasonably apprehended fear of the claimant for his safety. 16 This commenced with the ruling in Hambrook v Stokes,17 wherein a mother went into shock, consequent to espying an out of control lorry bearing down upon her daughter, who was playing in the garden. Her daughter was swift enough to evade the vehicle that was about to crush her. However, the mother was so deeply affected that she miscarried the child that she was bearing and eventually died. The court held that a claim would succeed, when a mother panicked for her offspring, under conditions where she would be terrified for her life.18 Similarly in our problem, Joy experienced deep shock after visiting her daughter’s dead body. According to the cases discussed above, she can claim damages for the psychiatric injury caused, thus caused to her. Randy – Nervous Shock In a spirit of good Samaritanship, Randy volunteered his help by attending to the injured, dying and dead at the site of the accident. The terrible scenes witnessed by him propelled him into nervous shock that persisted for a long time. In Attia v British Gas Plc,19 the Court of Appeal decided that a woman, who underwent shock upon viewing her house that had been destroyed in a gas explosion was entitled to sue for damages. However, in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,20 the House of Lords rejected the claim of a father who had driven down to the site of the tragedy, in order to ascertain the condition of his son. The latter had died in the disaster. Their Lordships ruled that the father had not come across the immediate aftermath of the event. 21 This line of reasoning was adopted by the Court of Appeal in Jones v Wright,22 wherein it held that the claim of the couple was inadmissible. This couple had claimed for psychiatric injury on being informed of the death of their relatives. 23 Moreover, in Taylor v Somerset,24 the claim of a wife for psychiatric injury was rejected. Her husband had passed away, on account of a heart attack, due to the failure of the hospital to diagnose a heart condition. The distressed wife claimed for psychiatric injury from the hospital. 25 The inexorably developing trend in UK law is that the primary victims who has been directly involved in a negligent incident can successfully claim for psychiatric injury. Such claims can be preferred along the lines of claims for physical injury. All the same, the situation undergoes a remarkable change, when secondary victims are involved.26 These are individuals who perceive the incident, and the law controls liability via the necessity to establish the reasonable predictability of psychiatric harm and physical propinquity to the incident or its immediate aftereffects. The imposition of these limitations by the courts, expresses their intent to preclude a flood of claims from onlookers and witnesses. 27 To a certain extent, it could be justifiable for requiring ordinary resilience, the experiencing of a shock to the senses, and to be actually proximate to the incident, for making a claim of psychiatric injury. All the same, the necessity for the existence of a relationship of love and regard betwixt the principal victim of the occurrence and the onlooker, prevents a large category of people who have undergone the psychological consequences of beholding dreadful incidents, from claiming compensation. 28 According to the above discussion, Randy cannot succeed in his claim damages for the depression resulting from viewing the aftermath of the incident. Crabshack Ltd – Loss of shop and profits The runaway train caused extensive damage to Crabshack Ltd, a restaurant. This restaurant claimed damages for the destroyed food items, refrigerators and freezers. In addition, this restaurant claimed damages for the loss in income, till such time as the station was restored to normalcy. In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound (No 1)),29 the trial judge conceded that some damage had been conceivable, in that situation. He further stated that the fouling of the harbour and the ships moored therein, due to the oil spill, was foreseeable. With regard to the damage resulting from the fire caused by this oil spill, the judge held it to be a direct consequence of the defendant’s negligence. 30 In addition, in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound (No 2)), 31 a case was brought by the owners of two ships that had been undergoing repairs in the wharf and had been damaged in a fire. Although, the trial judge accepted that the fire had resulted from the negligence of the defendant, he refused to concede that it had been anticipatable. This decision was overturned by the Privy Council, which ruled that when the damage was foreseeable, liability had to supervene, irrespective of the level of likelihood. 32 Similarly in our problem, the damage caused to the food items and other gadgets was foreseeable by the defendant. Hence, Crabshack Ltd can claim damages for these losses. For instance, Martindale v Duncan,33 a cab had been damaged, on account of the claimant’s negligence. The claimant had the vehicle repaired, only after procuring the necessary authorisation form the vehicle’s insurers. During this waiting period, the taxi driver underwent a loss of business profit. The court ruled that the taxi driver could recover this loss, even though the claimant had awaited the insurers’ authorisation due to paucity of funds. 34 Similarly, in our problem, Crabshack Ltd can successfully claim damages for their future losses, until the station is rebuilt. Bibliography Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310 Allin v City & Hackney Health Authority [1996] 7 Med LR 167 Attia v British Gas Plc [1988] QB 304 Bailey SH, ‘Causation in negligence: what is a material contribution’ (2010) 30(2) Legal Studies 167 Brice v Brown [1984] 1 All ER 997 Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669 Griffith R, ‘Compensation for psychiatric injury: evolution of a law of nervous shock’ (2006) 11(9) British Journal of Community Nursing 396 Hambrook v Stokes Bros [1925] 1 KB 141 Jones and Others v Wright [1991] 3 All ER 88 Lunney M and Oliphant K, Tort Law: Text and Materials (Oxford University Press 2013) Martindale v Duncan [1973] 2 All ER 355 Mullany N, ‘Psychiatric damage in the House of Lords – fourth time unlucky: Page v Smith’ (1995) 3(2) Journal of Law and Medicine 112 Oughton D and Harvey B, Q & A Revision Guide Law of Torts 2013 and 2014 (Oxford University Press 2013) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (the Wagon Mound (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (the Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 Page v Smith [1995] UKHL 7 Stephenson G, Sourcebook on Tort Law (Cavendish Publishing 2000) 233 Taylor v Somerset Health Authority [1993] PIQR 262 Turner C, Unlocking Torts (3rd edn, Routledge 2013) Read More