Tort XXIX - Causation XV
In
Farrell v Avon Health Authority (2001) the plaintiff was a father who’d been
told that his newborn baby had died. Shocked by the news the father succumbed
to a psychiatric illness. Soon afterwards he was told that the baby was alive
and that the hospital had made a mistake. Regardless of the fact that he’d been
told that the baby was well, the illness that he succumbed to exacerbated the
other problems that he had namely drinking and drug addiction. The plaintiff
sued.
The
court held that the father was a primary victim and the category of primary
victim was broadened following the limitation set by Alcock v Chief Constable
of South Yorkshire (1992) which defined a primary victim as someone who fears
for his or her own safety and as a result suffers from nervous shock or
succumbs to a psychiatric illness.
Nevertheless,
as per the decision in McLoughlin v O'Brian (1983) the father was entitled to
claim. Any parent who succumbs to nervous shock either as a result of
witnessing the state their child was in after an accident or thought that their
child was a victim of a mishap or an accident, though that may not necessarily
be the case see Hambrook v Stokes Brothers (1925), is entitled to claim.
In
Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands (2001) the plaintiff a probationary
police officer sustained serious injuries while making an arrest. He tried to
request for help or backup and made 4 radio calls for assistance but no help
was forthcoming. The plaintiff sued.
The
court in line with the decision in Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria
Police (1999) held that police officers owed a duty of care to other police
officers and the police in this instance had breached that duty of care by
failing to come to the assistance of the probationary officer. The reasoning in
the case was similar to the reasoning in the earlier case of Costello v Chief
Constable of Northumbria Police (1999).
In
Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2002) the widow of a man who
committed suicide while he was in the custody of the police by hanging himself
with a belt sued the police for negligence. The court in line with the decision
in Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1999) held that the
police owed the plaintiff a duty of care and that they had breached that duty
of care by failing to prevent the suicide.
The
court decided that the police had a duty to determine beforehand if a prisoner
in their custody was suicide prone or had a tendency to commit suicide and were
required to take the necessary precautions, if they found that the prisoner was
likely to commit suicide, by ensuring that the prisoner did not have the means
to do so.
It
addition to committing suicide with belts, other items that prisoners normally
have on them or use on their persons can also be used to commit suicide
including shirts see Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1999).
In
Bradford-Smart v West Sussex CC (2002) the plaintiff was a student who was
repeatedly bullied after school and the incident took place outside the school
premises. As a result of the bullying she succumbed to a psychiatric illness.
The plaintiff sued. The court held that while a student is under the supervision
of the school when he or she is within the school premises that supervision
ends as soon as the student leaves the school premises but there may be
exceptions when a duty may be imposed on the school in instances where the
student is bullied outside school.
The
courts did not reject the idea or the possibility of imposing a duty on a
school when a student is bullied outside school but whether that duty is
breached or otherwise would depend on the facts of the case. The plaintiff was
unsuccessful.
With
regards to bullying outside school, normally there is very little that the
school can do because the child is no longer in their care but a police
complaint can be made.
Anyone
who stumbles across a bullying incident can make the complaint but if it
involves other children in the same school it might be appropriate to bring the
matter to the attention of the school and if the school fails to take any
action and the victim feels threatened, the victim or anyone on his or her
behalf can make the complaint.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment