preview

Annie V. Smith Procedure Essay

Decent Essays

This problem question is about claiming for damages due to psychiatric harm. It involves questions regarding primary victims, secondary victims, and special duties problems.

Annie: Annie who suffered from uncontrollable grief after being her dead husbands body would most likely not be able to successfully sue for damages. In Hinz v. Berry [1970] Q.B. 40 it is stated that in english law one can´t claim for damages because of grief or sorrow. Annie would be classified and try to sue as a secondary victim since she was not present or received personal injury herself. As a secondary victim there are a few requirements that must be fulfilled, Annie does not fulfil the requirement of `the immediate aftermath`, meaning that Annie didn't see her …show more content…

Either Cedric could claim for damages as a priorly victim stating that the the defendant could have foreseen that the incident which caused the fire alarm to go off could have given Cedric personal injury, whether it is physical or mentally injury does not matter. But, most likely Cedric wouldn't be able to sue as a primary victim based on the decision in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd (2007). In this case it was held that the claimant couldn't sue even though the Page v Smith principle was applied because the defendants could not have foreseen the claimants reaction. Applying this case authority onto the problem question regarding Cedric I would advise the Saveloy Hotel company to that Cedric´s claim as a primary victim is not likely to succed. Reasoning for this is because the hotel company could not have foreseen that Cedric´s reaction to the fire alarm, which in itself was a reaction to the fire. The hotel company could not foresee that Cedric would think that the hotel was being attacked by aliens, which is the reason of why his mental illness

Get Access