The issue in this problem is regarding psychiatric illness.

Definition of psychiatric illness:

Winfield defines psychiatric illness as a traumatic response to an event.
Lord Ackner: Psychiatric illness is a sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a
horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind of the claimant.
The issue in this problem is whether the defendant, ______ can be held liable for
the psychiatric illness suffered by the plaintiff(s)_____________.
In order to establish the liability of the defendant _______, we must first find and
identify the plaintiffs whether they are primary or secondary victims. Primary
victims are those who put themselves in danger but actually suffered only
psychiatric illness. Secondary victims are those who do not put themselves in
danger but actually suffer psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing the
accident. In this problem, ____________ can be categorized in primary victim
while___________
is
a
secondary
victim
as_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________.
Elements that needs to be fulfilled in order to claim for psychiatric illness:

1. Plaintiff must meet the ordinary requirements for a claim in negligence that is
duty, breach and damage as in Donoghue v Stevenson. There must be a
presence of duty of care by the defendant towards the plaintiff. As the conduct of
the defendant can directly affect the plaintiff, it is safe to say that the plaintiff is
the neighbour of the defendant. In this problem _________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________. ( tambah duty, breach, causation,
damage)

2. The psychiatric illness must be reasonably foreseeable. In order to recover the

damage, the plaintiff must prove that the kind of damage which he incurred must
be foreseeable. In Bourhill v Young, the plaintiff failed to recover the damage as
she was outside of potential danger. Thus she is not foreseeable victim.
(application to plaintiffs)
____________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________. In White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,
the court held that a rescuer must be an active one to claim for his psychiatric
illness meaning that he must have exposed or put himself at risk or danger

during rescue operation. (plaintiffs name

rescuer)________________________________________

&

application

if

it

was

__________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________.

3. Plaintiff must suffer a medically recognized psychiatric illness as in Hinz v

Berry for grief and sorrow caused by a persons death. Damages are however
recoverable for nervous shock or to put in medical terms, for any recognizable
psychiatric illness by the breach of duty by the defendant. The psychiatric illness
must be approved or acknowledged by medical doctor or psychiatrist. In the case
of Jubli v Sunway Lagoon, the children failed to claims for psychiatric illness as
they consulted counsellor instead of psychiatrist or medical doctor, while Jubli
succeeded in proving psychiatric illness when it was proven by psychiatrist. In
this
problem
_______________
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________. We can safely say that they all
suffered from recognizable psychiatric illness. Thus this element has been
fulfilled. Being primary victim only ___________ will be able to claim for her
psychiatric illness as she had satisfied all the elements while _____ failed in his
claim as he did not satisfy the element of foreseeability. ______________ as the
only secondary victim must continue with the rest of the elements. This element
may be/ may not be fulfilled by______. Nevertheless, _____ will need medical
prove to prove her psychiatric illness.
ONLY FOR SECONDARY VICTIM (EXCEPTION FOR TEST 4 TO WITNESS FOR A
HORRFYING ACCIDENT)
4. Proximity in terms of relationship or sometimes known as the familial test. In
this test the plaintiff must prove close ties of love and affection between the
secondary victim and the victim of the accident. ___________ must establish the
existence of close ties of love and affection between __ and ____________. In
McLoughlin v OBrian the court held that close ties of love and affection is said to
exist between spouses and parent and child. It was further extended in Alcock v
Chief Constable of South Yorkshire to relationship which involves ties of love and
affection akin to that of spouse, parent and child as in engaged couples,
cohabiters and person in loco parentis. ________ will have no problem satisfying
this element there is a relationship between _____ and _______. While ________
need to prove there is a close ties of love and affection between h__ and________.
Therefore there is/no close ties of love and affection between them. __________
have fulfilled this element while_____ not fulfilled this element.
EXCEPTION FOR TEST 4 FOR WITNESS TO HORRIFYING ACCIDENT.
4. Proximity in terms of relationship or sometimes known as the familial test. In
this test the plaintiff must prove close ties of love and affection between the

secondary victim and the victim of the accident. The authority in this test is
McLouglin v OBrian and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Since
_______ did not fulfil the familial test, however she needs to fulfil the exception
test which she needs to witness an extremely horrifying accident. In this
problem,_______________.
___________ fulfil this test as she fulfil the extremely
horrifying accident.

5. Proximity in terms of time and space or also known as temporal test. In this
test the plaintiff must show that he was at the scene of the time or in the vicinity
of the accident or have come across the immediate aftermath of the accident. In
McLoughlin v O Brian the court held that the plaintiff came upon the immediate
aftermath of the accident when she arrived at the hospital within two hours and
saw her family still covered in blood ad dust. However in Alcock v Chief
Constable of South Yorkshire, the court held that identification of bodies at
mortuary eight hours after the accident did not constitute as immediate
aftermath. ____________ failed/fulfilled this test as she was (neither/ or is) at the
scene of accident or/nor in the vicinity of the accident.
6. Direct perception test or spatial test. The rule is that the plaintiff must learn of
the accident with her own unaided senses. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire it was held that knowing the accident while watching live or recorded
broadcast or radio is being inform of the accident by a third party. In that
situation the plaintiff would not have learn of the accident with her own eyes and
ears. ______ failed/ fulfilled this test as she knew of the accident with/without her
own eyes and ears. Applying the Alcock _________ did not/ did learn of the
accident with her own unaided senses.
In conclusion, only________ has fulfilled all the elements relevant to him/her. Thus
____ can claim damages for ___ psychiatric illness. The defendant will not be
liable for the psychiatric illness suffered by ______ as they not fulfil some of the
elements of psychiatric illness.