Case Study: Rescuers And Psychiatric Illness
Question 7
In this question, it sets out the following issues in relation to the rescuers and the psychiatric illness caused by the accident, including i) whether Samantha and Eric, as rescuers and primary victims, would be entitled to damages caused by the accident; ii) whether Susan, as a secondary victim, would satisfied the requirements in order to claim the damages; iii) whether Julie, as a primary victim, would be entitled to damages caused by the accident.
i) whether Samantha and Eric, as rescuers and primary victims, would be entitled to damages caused by the accident.
Generally, there is no duty to rescue and to safe another who has been injured or is in danger of being injured except cases where that person creates a situation …show more content…
Whilst doing so, Samantha and Eric were injured to a different level. Given so, applying Chadwick v British Railways Board to our case, it is obvious that Samantha and Eric would both be considered as the primary victims as well. Samantha and Eric used different methods in attempting to put off the fire. To apply East Suffolk Rivers Catch Boards’ requirement that the rescuing should be to up a standard of a reasonable person, one could consider that Samantha, with the use of a small amount of water in attempt to put off the fire on the wooden cottage, could be seen as a unreasonable standard. Not only did the small amount of water of no help, but it also increased the strength of the fire. In contrast, Eric’s use of a fire extinguisher would be more of a reasonable standard. He might therefore be able to claim the damages caused.
Nonetheless, Samantha has caused more injury than it originally had, as the fire’s strength increased. Applying Lai Tai Tai’s case, it would be likely that Samantha had created a situation of peril. Had she not throw the water in, the fire might not have increased in strength. Under such situation, she would have the duty of care to Eric and might be liable in negligence for the injury of Eric. It is therefore apparent that Samantha would not be entitled to the damaged but might be liable …show more content…
A primary victim means the person who is within the area of potential danger. In Wong Yiu Wing v To Chark Wah & Anor, the court held that he defendant was liable as the plaintiff suffered immediate physical injury and shock. In the case of Page v Smith, it was ruled that the eggshell skull principle applies here and that once the duty of care is established, it is irrelevant whether he is a person of ‘ordinary phlegm’ or not.
Applying Wong Yiu Wing to our case, it is obvious that Julie does not only satisfy the requirement of a primary victim but also within the category of direct injury from the burning of leg. Although she reacts badly due to the inherent problem, it should not affect the result of the plaintiff being liable as mentioned in the case of Page v Smith. Julie is therefore highly probable to be able to recover for the damages from holding the defendant
In this question, it sets out the following issues in relation to the rescuers and the psychiatric illness caused by the accident, including i) whether Samantha and Eric, as rescuers and primary victims, would be entitled to damages caused by the accident; ii) whether Susan, as a secondary victim, would satisfied the requirements in order to claim the damages; iii) whether Julie, as a primary victim, would be entitled to damages caused by the accident.
i) whether Samantha and Eric, as rescuers and primary victims, would be entitled to damages caused by the accident.
Generally, there is no duty to rescue and to safe another who has been injured or is in danger of being injured except cases where that person creates a situation …show more content…
Whilst doing so, Samantha and Eric were injured to a different level. Given so, applying Chadwick v British Railways Board to our case, it is obvious that Samantha and Eric would both be considered as the primary victims as well. Samantha and Eric used different methods in attempting to put off the fire. To apply East Suffolk Rivers Catch Boards’ requirement that the rescuing should be to up a standard of a reasonable person, one could consider that Samantha, with the use of a small amount of water in attempt to put off the fire on the wooden cottage, could be seen as a unreasonable standard. Not only did the small amount of water of no help, but it also increased the strength of the fire. In contrast, Eric’s use of a fire extinguisher would be more of a reasonable standard. He might therefore be able to claim the damages caused.
Nonetheless, Samantha has caused more injury than it originally had, as the fire’s strength increased. Applying Lai Tai Tai’s case, it would be likely that Samantha had created a situation of peril. Had she not throw the water in, the fire might not have increased in strength. Under such situation, she would have the duty of care to Eric and might be liable in negligence for the injury of Eric. It is therefore apparent that Samantha would not be entitled to the damaged but might be liable …show more content…
A primary victim means the person who is within the area of potential danger. In Wong Yiu Wing v To Chark Wah & Anor, the court held that he defendant was liable as the plaintiff suffered immediate physical injury and shock. In the case of Page v Smith, it was ruled that the eggshell skull principle applies here and that once the duty of care is established, it is irrelevant whether he is a person of ‘ordinary phlegm’ or not.
Applying Wong Yiu Wing to our case, it is obvious that Julie does not only satisfy the requirement of a primary victim but also within the category of direct injury from the burning of leg. Although she reacts badly due to the inherent problem, it should not affect the result of the plaintiff being liable as mentioned in the case of Page v Smith. Julie is therefore highly probable to be able to recover for the damages from holding the defendant