TORT LAW

Tort Law: Secondary Victims Who Suffer Psychiatric Damage

Tort Law: Secondary Victims Who Suffer Psychiatric Damage

Introduction

The law related to the liability for negligently inflicted psychiatric illness, in the last two decades has been of considerable interest. There has been a lot of discussion, studies and reports surrounding the laws in this relation following the Hillsborough football stadium incident. Many deaths and injuries were reported and later there were claims for psychiatric illness leading to many changes to the law. When earlier it was believed that negligently inflicted psychiatric illness was not recoverable in tort law, the later years saw the court allowing it, subject to a few restrictions. The paper thus considers various aspects surrounding this area of tort law while particular attention to the Commission Report on Psychiatric Illness is also paid. It also discusses how the law limits the claims that can be made in this regard.

Discussion

In relation to liability for psychiatric illness, history indicates ignorance, suspicion and fear as central. Ignorance with regard to the reasons of psychiatric illness, suspecting of the medical area that treats psychiatric illness and fearing that if such a liability is allowed, a large number of claims would arise, are the three major factors that are instrumental in the history of this area of tort law. From all the laws that are defined in relation to liability for psychiatric illness, the notion that emerges is that if it is not visible then it has actually not caused any harm. This notion can be ascertained from the way psychiatric damage is differentiated from physical damage and is considered to be less important, and not much compensable. Although there has been a certain extent of change in this attitude, yet these ideas are still prevalent in the policy factors that are given as justification to restriction of recovery.

Background

Liability in negligence to psychiatric illness has continued to be among the most argued and discussed issue in tort law. Cases in relation to recovery of psychiatric illness can be traced back to 1901 when a pregnant woman in Dulieu v.White & Sons [1907] 2 KB 669 was able to get compensation for damages in terms of the shock that she suffered when she saw a horse van being crashed by the defendant negligently through the wall of the bar which made her fearful. Another case related to psychiatric damage was found to be Hambrook v Stokes Bros [1925] 1 KB 141 wherein a mother was extended liability on the basis of seeing a runaway lorry descending the hill where her children were left by her for school. She was shocked at seeing such an incident and thus suffered psychiatric illness and thus the defendant had to compensate. From this case, it could be ascertained that for liability, it was not a requirement that injury to the plaintiff herself was needed to be foreseeable, but it was subject to the fact that the incident was witnessed rather than being told about by ...