Advising the Potential Claimants on Any Claims in Negligence they Might Have

1501 Words7 Pages
Advising the Potential Claimants on Any Claims in Negligence they Might Have Bushco own a fleet of tankers which deliver fuel to garages throughout the UK. One morning Geoff, one of Bushco's drivers, is talking on his mobile phone, contrary to Bushco's express instructions. Alfie, a seven year old boy, whose mother has sent him out to play on the pavement, runs out into the road after his football. Distracted by his telephone conversation Geoff only sees Alfie at the last minute. He skids causing the tanker to overturn. Both Geoff and Alfie's mother, who sees the incident out of her window, believe that Alfie has been crushed under the overturned tanker. In fact Alfie is unhurt and runs away…show more content…
She must show that the psychiatric illness was reasonably foreseeable, Brice v. Brown[5] could apply. To have a claim she must satisfy the Alcock 'three stage test', In McLoughlin v. O'Brian (1983)[6] damages weren't recovered for mere grief or emotional distress at an injury or death. However in 'post traumatic stress disorder, which occurs in reaction to the violent or unexpected death of a close relative or friend, damages are recoverable, Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire.[7] She is capable of being a primary victim.[8]Liability being based on the legal duty not to be careless.[9] If it is held that the reasonable person would reasonably fore-see that Alfie's mother would suffer nervous shock then Geoff will be held liable. If she is held to be unforeseeable then Bourhill v Young (1943)[10] may apply. Page v Smith (1996)[11] damages may be recoverable. This is presumably because rescuers have been held to be primary victims Looks like she does fore-fill the three stage test. She must also show that she isn't normally susceptible to psychiatric illness. Does Geoff owe a duty of care to Sigmund? Sigmund could be a 'passer by' and if the court is satisfied that he was in 'close proximity of the danger zone'. Cadwick v British Transport Commission[12] Sigmund is capable of becoming a 'primary victim' under the
Open Document