PSYCHIATRIC

INJURY CLAIM
Hieu Nguyen
20 January 2024
Please consider the below event NOT from a
legal perspective
◦ The father was out shopping with his two children, aged 12 and 9.
◦ He mentioned that he felt ill. One of his daughters was walking slightly behind her father and the other slightly in front. The
daughter in front (the first daughter) turned and saw her father leaning against a wall momentarily. She saw his eyes roll back.
Both girls saw him fall backwards and hit his head on the floor.
◦ The children were alone with their father in the street. The first daughter tried to ring her mother and then an ambulance but in
her distress was unsuccessful. There was no one immediately around and she began shouting for help until eventually a lady
came and called an ambulance. The other daughter managed to make contact with her mother but was too distressed to be
understood. The first daughter took the phone and told her mother what had happened. Both girls saw a man holding their father's
head and there was blood on his hands.
◦ Their mother arrived at the scene and the children were taken into a nearby church. The children remember hearing their mother
outside screaming their father's name and going back outside. The children saw the ambulance crew put a foil blanket over their
father. They were doing chest compressions. There was a crowd of people including the police.
◦ The children were taken to an aunt and uncle's house. The ambulance arrived at 15.57 and left the scene at 16.28, arriving at
hospital at 16.43 but further resuscitation was felt to be futile and the father was declared dead at 16.51.
WE ALL DIE …

AND…
DESTINY?
Law…

What is the law?

What should the law be?

What ought the law to be?

 PAUL & ANOR V
ROYAL
WOLVERHAMPTON
NHS TRUST [2024]
UKSC 1
What is the law?
◦ Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the
claimant (the secondary victim) not to cause that person
a recognised (or recognisable) psychiatric illness
consequent on the death, injury or imperilment of the
primary victim.
◦ The claimant (the secondary victim) must suffer a
recognised psychiatric illness as distinct from mental
distress (which includes upset, grief and anxiety).
◦ It must have been reasonably foreseeable to the
defendant that the claimant, as a person of reasonable
fortitude, might suffer a psychiatric illness as a result of
the defendant's negligent conduct which has led to the
death, injury or imperilment of the primary victim.
What is the law? –
Proximity Factors
◦ The claimant had a close tie of love and affection
with the primary victim.
◦ The claimant was close to the accident in time and
space or came across its immediate aftermath.
◦ The claimant directly perceived the accident through
his or her own unaided senses (rather than, for
example, hearing about it from a third party).
◦ The psychiatric illness was caused by a shock to the
system: that is, the accident must have been shocking
and horrific.
◦ "'Shock', in the context of this cause of action,
involves the sudden appreciation by sight or
sound of a horrifying event, which violently
agitates the mind. It has yet to include psychiatric
illness caused by the accumulation over a period
of time of more gradual assaults on the nervous
system."
ENOUGH?
IS DEATH A RELEVANT
EVENT?
Relevant ◦ Assuming that there is a significant time lag between the

event negligence and the death of the father…

 ◦ No one could read or hear about the events…without being moved
by the terrible distress caused to [the secondary victims] by the
sudden deaths of [the primary victims] and the shocking
circumstances in which those deaths occurred. The thought that
these tragic events could have been avoided if the hospital or
doctor had exercised due care must, as in every case of wrongful
And the law is… death, add further to the agony and perhaps anger that they feel.
The law cannot, however, impose duties and liabilities on the
basis of sympathy, however strongly felt. For the reasons we
have sought to explain, the claims for compensation made in these
cases do not satisfy the legal requirements for the recovery of
damages by secondary victims who suffer injury as a result of the
death of another person. The appeals must therefore be dismissed.
Your thoughts?

What should the law be? What ought the law to be?
THANK YOU!