Duty of Care: Psychiatric Harm Analysis

Dear Tim,

Thank you for your email regarding Miss Eve Edmunds, where you asked for my assistance in establishing whether Miss Edmunds was owed a duty of care by Mr Alistair Agard. From my understanding of the tort of negligence, Miss Edmunds would be classed as a secondary victim of psychiatric harm, and it is my belief that she was indeed owed a duty of care by Mr Agard. Below I will assess whether Miss Edmunds was suffering from a recognised psychiatric injury (RPI), explain the distinguishing features between primary victims (PV) and secondary victims (SV) of psychiatric harm, consider the Alcock quadripartite test, examine the difficulties that may be faced should Miss Edmunds be considered a ‘rescuer’, and then culminate by bringing all

They in turn will consult the ICD-10 and DSM-5, which specify the symptoms of various psychological disorders. I note from your email that Miss Edmunds has been to see her GP regarding her symptoms, and that as a result she has been treated for depression. From my understanding of the condition, I would also suggest Miss Edmunds’ symptoms are consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), given that she has been suffering from recurrent nightmares of the event (PTSD is considered an RPI). I would therefore suggest that you advise Miss Edmunds to speak to her GP again, with a view to receiving a referral to her local Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) team - as medically trained professionals specialising in the treatment of mental health conditions, they will be best placed to confirm or refute such a diagnosis. Furthermore, I believe we should instruct a recognised professional of adult psychiatry to carry out an independent report of Miss Edmunds’ symptoms, as it will be possible to use such a report as evidence should any claim proceed to trial and believe it unlikely that the court would challenge such a statement. As a result, I see no difficulty in proving to the court that Miss Edmunds was indeed suffering from an

In Chadwick v British Transport Commission (1967), court held that the claimant was owed a duty of care by the defendant as it was reasonably foreseeable that someone may try and rescue passengers injured in a train crash, and that that person may suffer an injury in the process. As the claimant was at risk of direct physical harm, he was treated as a PV. The principle that rescuers are treated as PV’s was overruled in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1999) however, when it was decided that rescuers are not to be treated as a special category of claimant. They must be at risk of direct harm like all other primary victims (considered again in Cullin v London Fire Service (1999)). This case is often explained on the grounds of policy, in that it would be repugnant to allow the police officers to recover where relatives had been denied compensation. As a result of the above, Miss Edmunds would certainly not be classified as a PV, and for public policy reasons her status as an SV would be questionable had she not known Mr Carlisle before the