Tort - Seminar 10 - Psychiatric Harm - Cleanglaze by Claire Turner

claire43 — 2019-12-03 10:45:03 UTC

Cleanglaze Co. won a contract to clean the windows of Nottingley’s tallest building, the Millennium Tower, and sent two of their employees, Derek and Ernie, to complete the job. In order to keep costs down and speed up working time, Cleanglaze Co. decided not to give Derek and Ernie additional safety ropes designed to stabilize the cradle they were working in.

One morning Derek and Ernie were cleaning the windows of the Tower when a strong gust of wind rocked the cradle so violently that Derek fell 20 meters into a crowd of shoppers. Derek was physically unhurt as his fall was broken by Freda, who was seriously injured and was rushed to hospital by ambulance. Evidence subsequently showed that use of the additional safety ropes would have prevented any accident.

Advise the following parties as to their remedies in tort, if any:

(d) Harriet, Freda’s mother, who was telephoned by the hospital and arrived to find that Freda had undergone emergency surgery. She was allowed to see Freda after the surgery but Freda’s condition deteriorated dramatically and she was transferred to another hospital for a further operation to remove a blood clot on her brain. Three days later Harriet was told that the operation had not been successful and Freda’s life support machine was turned off. As a result of the experience, Harriet is now suffering from pathological grief disorder.

claire43 — 2019-12-03 10:57:31 UTC

Secondary victim

succeeds close tie. Proximity - not part of the immediate aftermath.
Claimant - McLouglin Defence - distinguish - she already had the op and was clean whereas in McLouglin they were in the raw state covered in mud and blood after the accident.
Galli Atkinson - viewed in mortrary. Defence - again the victim was in the raw state after the accident with visible injury.
Shocking event - Lord Ackner - horrific rather than gradual realisation. Ronanye 3 criteria

Condition - Grief - Ackner - grief not claimable - but pahtological grief reaction - recognised condition (Vernon v Boseley)

Harriet

2019-12-03 13:51:10 UTC

Link to Prezi

claire43 — 2022-11-29 12:09:33 UTC

Paul v Wolverhampton

claire43 — 2024-11-28 12:23:24 UTC

(a) Derek, who since the accident has suffered from anxiety attacks and recurring nightmares;

claire43 — 2024-11-28 16:00:59 UTC

Primary victim - fear of his own safety. (Dulieu v White)

Cleanglaze should have foreseen the physical harm as a result of not providing the safety equipment and so are responsible for full amount of his claim (Page v Smith)

(b) Ernie, who thought at the time of the accident that Derek had been killed by the fall and who was so shocked by what happened that he has been unable to resume his usual duties at Cleanglaze;

claire43 — 2024-11-28 16:01:24 UTC

Primary victim - he is in the cradle and his friend has just fallen to the ground. (Page v Smith). Condition - recognised psychiatric condition (Hinz v Berry). Unable resume his duties - seem suggestion but Dr diagnosis.

Secondary victim - Alcock

There at time - witnessed with his own unaided sense

Shocking event - horrific (Ackner LJ Alcock)

close tie - MacFarlane v EE Caledonia - no claim as a bystander

(c) Gurjit, Freda’s boyfriend of three months, who heard the accident from around the corner and rushed to the scene where he saw Freda lying injured. As a consequence of what he saw, Gurjit has suffered a recurrence of an anxiety disorder for which he had treatment two years earlier;

claire43 — 2024-11-28 16:01:46 UTC

Not a primary victim - round corner - didn't fear for his own personal safety

Secondary victim - Alcock

Proximity in time and space - but part immediate aftermath - Claimant - McLoughlin . Need to see if there are any distinguishing factors - would not prove the close tie.

Shocking event? - Ackner - Sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event which violently agitates the mind.

Anxiety - recurrence. Diagnosed (Hinz v Berry) - treatment

Reasonable person would have suffered psychiatric harm? Yes. person of reasonable fortitude and customary phlegm (Bourhill v Young)

Page v Smith - take your victim as you find them - thin skull rule.

Duty

claire43 — 2025-12-02 15:30:10 UTC

ER/ER - precedent - Wilson Clyde Coal v English

Breach - reasonable employer would have provided safety ropes.