Guinness v Pickle To assess the potential liability in negligence towards Guinness it is first necessary to determine whether Pickle owed him a duty of care. As Guinness' potential claim involves psychiatric harm the tests in cases such as Alcock and Page v Smith would be used. For there to be a duty of care, according to Page, Guinness would have to have a recognisable psychiatric illness in order to claim. We are aware that Guinness suffered from a form of neurosis following the accident, however, it is unclear from the facts present whether his form is a recognisable psychiatric illness. If it was not, then Pickle would not owe Guinness a duty of care. If, however, Guinness was suffering from an illness that was recognised, then he may …show more content…
Stella would have to be a primary or secondary victim in order to claim, therefore it is necessary to assess her status. As she witnessed the accident via photos broadcast on television she is not a primary victim, according to Page, as she was not in the danger zone of the accident. To determine whether she is able to claim as a secondary victim she would need to fulfil the control mechanisms described in Alcock. As she saw photographs of the accident on the television she could not be described as having witnessed the event with her own senses. Some of the relatives in the Alcock case witnessed through television footage their family members in the fatal crush, however, they were still unable to claim as it was thought that television pictures could not equate to seeing or hearing the event. If the footage was a live television broadcast, instead of photographs, then there may be more of a chance of a successful claim. In the Alcock case, Lord Ackner, argued there may be a situation where the television footage is as great, if not more so, than the original accident, however, Lord Jauncey disagreed and said that a television broadcast did not satisfy the requirements of …show more content…
First it is necessary to establish whether PC McGarry was in the "zone of danger". As he tended to the injured Wormold it is likely that he was very close to the accident, especially as he is a police offer, rather than a medic. As was the case with Guinness, it is unlikely that he would be found to be in the "zone of danger" because he was not, as far as we know, on board the balloon. He also cannot be described as a secondary victim as he does not fulfil the requirements as set out in Alcock. As far as the facts of the case that we know, PC McGarry does not have a close tie of love and affection with the victim, therefore he does not satisfy the
Mr McKinnon must have, under the assumption of risk, known that there was a possibility for the risk of injury resulting in paralysis. Over data collected over a period of six years, showed that a total of 12 players in the rugby league code [1997 – 2002] have suffered from spinal injuries (Carmody D, et.al 2005.) This assumes that Alex must have known the possible risks and under the Civil Liability Act 2002, section 5G, “injured persons presumed to be aware of obvious risks.” Thus resulting in the assumption that he knew what could happen in such a high contact sport. Once again, this can be seen in the case Cafest v. Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210. In this case Julianne Tombleson went roller-skating and broke her right wrist, claiming that she was not properly informed of the risks involved with the activity. However, the court found that there was a myriad of pre-emptive warnings to skaters such as highly visible signs that stated protection gear available for hire and that the rink centre will not be held legally liable to any injuries that may be sustained. This confirms and rectifies the concept of volenti non fit injuria. If the risks are clearly set out and known, one could not claim negligence for compensation, relating to the fact that Alex indisputably would have realised the potential
Sometimes beneficence and non-maleficence can clash in some circumstances, because doing someone harm in the short term, can benefit them in the long term. If the paramedics put a bigger emphasis on Walker getting looked at in the hospital, which would potentially be going against her wishes, it could've saved her life, therefore having a greater long term benefit. When the coroner assessed Walker, it was evident that the traffic accident produced major trauma, more than the paramedics first had assumed. They didn’t perform all trauma assessments which has proven to be potentially a crucial mistake. The coroners report showed that Walker was suffering from a lacerated spleen and multiple rib fractures. Unfortunately, the principle of non-maleficence can be said to of been neglected and therefore the deterioration and death of Nola Walker was the
Although she was undeniably injured and her suffering is provable, she cannot establish that she was injured directly by Bob Barton¡¦s actions. The relevant case law for this situation comes from several cases from Kentucky: 761 S.W.2d 625, 597 S.W.2d 141, 147 S.W. 742, 112 S.W. 600, and 77 S.W. 361 among others. These cases establish the law as defined by the courts that without physical contact a claim for negligence cannot be reputable.
After a regular customer mixed up the cellar door to be the gentlemen’s toilets and after opening it fell down the concrete steps to his death.The man stayed undiscovered to anyone as the owner was away to attend a programme on wellbeing and security. The prosecution contended that the owner of the pub was culpable, notwithstanding him not being available at the time of the occurrence, as he had not put enough cautioning signs nor he did lock the cellar door. The court held that the defendant could have made obliged measures to diminish the crossing of customers through the basement door, which was just a step from the ladies’ restrooms. This was a fair instance of gross negligence manslaughter as there had been few incidents of clients being confused between the cellar door and the toilet door. Moreover, when the defendant had begun the business in 2009, he was mindful that the cellar door could be risky for customers coming to the
...d, ‘so far as the threshold conditions are concerned, the factor which seems to me to outweigh all others is the prospect than an unidentified, and unidentifiable, carer may inflict further injury on a child he or she has already severely damaged’. This approach was later applied in Merton LBC v K .
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
The establishment of the Subjective definition of recklessness was through the case of Cunningham. In R v Cunningham D broke a gas metre to steal money contained within the metre, leading to a gas leak which caused D’s mother in law to become seriously ill. The subjective definition was developed here as D had been reckless as he had realised there was a risk of gas escaping and endangering someone, and went ahead with his action anyway. Therefore, demonstrating the subjective definition that a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness they must ...
Donoghue became ill in consequence. She could not sue the shop as she had not bought the bottle but could sue the manufacture as during inspection the snail was not discovered in the bottle, which could lead and did lead to injury to a person, and was shipped off to market. The manufacture was held responsible due to the neighbour principle. The reasonable man linked to this case would be that the manufacturer should have determined that the standard care for everything depended on the circumstances and what should have been known or what was known by the defendant. So it was reasonably foreseeable that the contaminated product would lead to injury to a person upon consumption and the necessary precautions were not in place from the reasonable man which led to damages being sought. The reasonable man should employ precautions and skill necessary to the
Berry that it was intended to impose upon claimants the burden of showing a positive expert diagnosis.” Second, the requirement that the mental injury sustained must be recognized as a psychiatric injury, has shifted the recovery of damages outside of the realm of courts and more into the realm of mental health specialists. Third, by allowing the requirement of recognizable mental injury to exist “accords unequal — that is, less — protection to victims of mental injury” compared to the victims of physical
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
Due to the fact that brain damage can cause a switch in one's behaviour, I believe that if a criminal act has occurred the individual should not be held responsible for their actions. Different measures should
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...
...rameters and all the aspects of the law that appear in our given scenario we can safely say that any claim that is being made by Tom’s representative by Daria and Samira on the grounds of negligence – breach of duty of care and psychiatric injury would be successful and that even though Harry suffered psychiatric injury his claim won’t be successful since he doesn’t fulfill the necessary parameters in order to make a successful claim.
Teff, H. (1998) Liability for Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Harm: Justifications and Boundaries, The Cambridge Law Journal 57,1, 92
Stevenson case was a civil one under the Scotland jurisdiction because it was a wrong committed by one person (Stevenson) that led to the ‘shock’ and ‘illness – gastroenteritis’ of another (Mrs. Donoghue). Therefore, under tort laws, there was reason for Mrs. Donoghue to sue Mr. Stevenson who was the manufacturer of the Ginger Beer. Moreover, the defendant was also seeking monetary compensation for the damages done and not a jail sentence or a