• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Negligence, causation and remoteness case. To advise the claimants, Abdul, Brian and Christie, it is necessary to establish whether a duty of care was owed to them and that physical or psychological harm resulted from an act of negligence. From the facts

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Skyride Ltd operated a theme park in Nottingly. The most popular ride was the roller coaster. The carriages on the roller coaster were attached to the rails by coupling devices that needed to be regularly checked. During the busy summer season, one of the carriages, with someone in it, came off the rails and plunged 100 metres to the ground. Subsequent investigations showed that Skyride Ltd had negligently failed to check the coupling devices regularly, and that this was the cause of the accident. Advise the following as to their remedies, if any, in tort:- i) Abdul was in the carriage immediately behind the one that plunged to the ground. He was terrified that his carriage would also come off the rails, and has now suffered a recurrence of a mental illness that he had been treated for in the past. ii) Brian's teenage son, Dave, was in the carriage that plunged to the ground. Brian was telephoned at home and told which hospital his son had been taken to. When he arrived at the hospital he was told that his son was in intensive care. Six hours later his son suffered a massive brain haemorrhage that required an emergency operation. The following day, Brian, who had spent the night at his son's bedside, was advised that the operation had been unsuccessful and that his son was brain dead. He agreed to have the life support machine turned off. ...read more.

Middle

[1996] A.C.1554 It is probable that Abdul will have a claim in Tort. He is a primary victim. He would not need to satisfy any test of fortitude of the ordinary man (assuming that his mental illness is recognised); so therefore Abdul should succeed. Brian was not present at the scene. His son Dave was in the carriage that plummeted to the ground. Dave died in hospital and Brian give permission for his son's life support to be switched off. Brian may not be suffering a recognised psychiatric Illness. He has anxiety and nightmares. In Alcock1 Dr. O'Connell's generic report describes the symptoms of "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" which are similar to Brian's; therefore I shall assume Brian's illness will satisfy the tests. Hambrook v Stokes5, in this case a mother had taken her children part way to school, leaving them to walk the remainder alone. An unattended lorry became out of control and careered down the hill into the path of some children. The mother did not directly witness the collision, but was nearby and heard the accident. A bystander told her that a child had been hurt and the resulting shock caused her to become unwell. She later suffered a miscarriage with further complications which eventually this led to her death. The claim succeeded even though she had no fear for her own safety; it was granted out of fear for her children. ...read more.

Conclusion

It is the mere perception of foreseeable harm which assisted in this case; in his summary Waller J. stated: ...although there was clearly an element of personal danger in what Mr. Chadwick was doing, I think I must deal with this case on the basis that it was the horror of the whole experience which caused his reaction...9 White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire2 the claimants were all police officers and denied damages on appeal. The lords considered if they were able to proceed as primary victims, thereby avoiding the rules set out in Alcock1 for secondary victims. In refusing to accept them as primary victims, Lord Steyn stated; ... in order to contain the concept of rescuer in reasonable bounds for the purposes of the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm the plaintiff must at least satisfy the threshold requirement that he objectively exposed himself to danger or reasonably believed that he was doing so...2 This statement diminishes Chadwick9; victims will have to perceive a danger of harm to succeed rather than rely of the enormity and horror of the whole experience. In consideration of Christie's status as a secondary victim she is unlikely to have a claim in Tort as she cannot satisfy "close ties of love and affection"; there is no evidence that she perceived herself to be in danger when she assisted Dave; and in considering Christie's illness, "distress" does not qualify as a recognised psychological disorder. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. A Critical Examination of the Concept of Breach of Duty of Care

    In particular, notice that: - They are very general. It is possible to understand what they mean in practice only after studying a number of illustrative cases. - Policy considerations are explicit in the second and third tests, but are implicit in Lord Atkin's test as well. Notice his use of 'ought' and 'reasonably'.

  2. Tort Law - Negligence

    However, by the information given it is not possible to establish if W has taken enough precautions or if he could have reasonably avoided the accident. It is also helpful if W can demonstrate that this type of accident does not occur very often.

  1. Duty of Care.

    - Captain and Carrier (Horsley v McLaren [1971]) - Referee and player in colts rugby (Smoldon v Whitworth [1997]) - Boxer and Body controlling rules of boxing and the safety arrangements under which contests are held (Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001])

  2. To succeed in a negligence action in tort, the claimant must prove three things

    In the question Diboncus satisfies the third requirement, because the chemicals escape. The fourth requirement was non -natural use of land by the defendant. A case that shows this is Rickards v. Lothian (1913), it was held, and there was no liability under Rylands v.

  1. Tort - Nervous Shock

    From the facts before me it is not clear whether April and Hugh were in fact engaged, all the facts of April and Hugh's relationship would have to be considered by the courts, If they had been living together for a long time and had their wedding booked for in

  2. Explain and define the concept of "duty of care". Can it adequately distinguish situations ...

    Despite this, the remoteness of damage is still helpful in creating a coherent principle and probably more so than the proximity of relationship test. This is because whereas the Proximity of relationship test is a complete variant and changes in every circumstance, the foreseeability of damage is an objective test and therefore has a constant element.

  1. How courts determine causation

    1 W.L.R 1411 25 Smith v Leech Brain(1962) 2 Q.B. 405 26 K Horsey & E Rackley, Tort Law (2nd edn, OUP 2011) 250 27 K Horsey & E Rackley, Tort Law (2nd edn, OUP 2011) 250 28 R v Dear (1996)

  2. McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above ...

    of a claim by special category victims.[29] This essay will mainly pay attention to two controversial aspects, namely rescuers and bystanders. In current law, there is no difference between a rescuer and an ordinary claimant, in order words, the one who is at no risk of physical injury must satisfy the Alcock control mechanism to be successful.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work