Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tuto Psychiatric Illness
Tuto Psychiatric Illness
2nd Situation
Haziq, a traffic police officer, went to the aid of the children when he arrived at the scene ten
minutes later. What he saw and experienced affected him so badly that he suffered from chronic
depression and subsequently could only hold a desk job.
3rd Situation
Mrs. Tan was at home watching the 12.30 news on TV 4 when it was reported that a terrible accident
had occurred involving 12 Standard One school children from Sulaiman Primary School. Mrs. Tan
had a daughter, Mei Mei, in that class. Scenes of the accident were shown and Mrs. Tan was sure
that she saw Mei Mei’s bag lying on the road at the scene of the accident. Unknown to Mrs. Tan
then, Mei Mei had thrown away her bag and managed to run away before the truck hit her
classmates. Mrs. Tan was never her self again after the accident. The doctor diagnosed her as
suffering from nervous shock.
ISSUESMimi, Haziq, and Mrs. Tan may succesfully claim
Whether
for negligence of psychiatric illness from Vijay’s negligence.
Mimi: 1st Victim-The plaintiff herself is involved in an
accident but she has not suffered physical injury, yet the shock gives
rise to post traumatic stress disorder, so she will be classified as
primary victim.
Mrs. Tan: 2nd Victim- Mrs. Tan is not at the scene of the
accident.
Element of Negligence
1)Duty of Care
Based on neighbor principles as explained by Lord Atkin.
In Donoghue v. Stevenson, lord Atkin said that neighbor is someone who
was directly affected by our action.
1. Foreseeability Test : Whether there is damage happened.
2. Proximity Test : Who will be affected by your action?
Mcloughlin v. O’Brian.
Facts: The plaintiff’s husband and her 3 children were involved in a car
accident. Later, she was informed about the accident and the death of one of
her children. Then, she suffered from shock.
Held: The house of lords held that the illness suffered by the plaintiff can be
reasonably foresee because of the injury to her family members that is
caused by the defendant’s negligence.
Application
1. The defendant owed Mimi duty of care because it was reasonable
forseeable that she would suffer injury from nervous shock when the sight
of the carnage almost drove her berserk. The shock she suffered was the
reasonably foreseeable result of the physical proximity between the
plaintiff and the victims in term of time and space.
2. Mrs. Tan could reasonably foresee that the illness can happen because of
the defendant’s negligence. Without knowing the real situation, it can be
say that Mrs. Tan could have shock because she saw Mei Mei’s bag on the
road where the accident occurred although Mei Mei could run from the
accident.
Medically Recognised
2. Haziq suffered from chronic depression due to his duty at the scene and
subsequently could only hold a desk job, but as he is a rescuer he may
failed this test because the
3. Mrs. Tan, who suffered from shock after hearing about the news, has
consult the doctor. The doctor said that Mrs. Tan has suffers from
nervous shock. The medical evidence from the doctor is acceptable thus
Mrs. Tan has fulfilled this requirement.
Familial Test
Mrs. Tan must prove that she has close relationship with her
daughter, Mei Mei.
Situation 3
By applying this facts to above situation, it can be say that Mrs.
Tan may have fulfill this test. This is because Mei Mei is her
daughter and there may be close relationship between them. The
mother-daughter relationship also may have proved that there is a
presence of love and affection since Mei Mei is still in primary
school and still need love attention from her mother. Thus, Mrs.
Tan may passed this test.
Temporal Test
To fulfill this test, Mrs. Tan must be at the scene.
Situation 3
Applied to above situation, Mrs. Tan may not fullfilled this test. The
reason is that Mei Mei does not heavily involved in that accident as she
luckily run away from the road. There is no reason why Mrs. Tan must
fulfill this test because there are no severe injuries happens to Mei Mei.
So, Mrs. Tan may failed to pass this test.
Spatial Test
The last test that must be fulfill by Mrs. Tan is spatial test. This test
requires the plaintiff to hear or sense the accident without any aided
senses. The plaintiff must see or hear the accident her/himself
without any interference from third party.
Situation 3
By applying to the above situation, Mrs. Tan knew about the accident when watching
the news on the television. Mrs. Tan also did not see her daughter’s sufferings or
injuries in the news, but only see her daughter’s bag lying on the road where the
accident happens. Thus, Mrs. Tan does not fulfill this test.
Conclusion
In the light of above discussion, the defendant may owed Mimi duty of care since she
has fulfilled the three tests which are element of negligence, reasonable foreseeable and
medically recognized. Meanwhile, Haziq claim may failed under the ground that he is a
police officer that policy consideration disallowing claims by police officers for
psychiatric illness as a consequence of rescue operations besides he failed to fulfilled the
familial test. Other than that, Mrs Tan does not fulfilled in temporal and spatial test. This
is because Mei Mei does not heavily involved in that accident as she luckily run away
from the road. There is no reason why Mrs. Tan must fulfill this test because there are no
severe injuries happens to Mei Mei. Moreover, Mrs. Tan also did not see her daughter’s
sufferings or injuries in the news, but only see her daughter’s bag lying on the road
where the accident happens.