Test Bank Chapter 5 Special Duty Problems Psychiatric Harm

Chapter 5: Special duty problems: psychiatric harm

Test Bank

Type: matching question

Title: Chapter 05 Question 01

1) For each of the following cases, match the case name to the correct date (AC citation).

a. Page v Smith = 1995

b. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police = 1998

c. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police = 1992

d. McLoughlin v O’Brian = 1982

Type: fill-in-blank

Title: Chapter 05 Question 02

2) According to Lord Steyn in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] the law in relation to recovery for negligently inflicted pure psychiatric harm is ‘ a ________ quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify’.

Type: multiple response question

Title: Chapter 05 Question 03

3) Why does the law distinguish psychiatric injury from physical injury?

Please select all that apply.

a. Difficulties in distinguishing between mere grief and psychiatric illnesses

b. ‘Floodgate’ concerns about a significant increase in the number of potential claims if recovery for psychiatric injury was not limited

c. To avoid potential unfairness to the defendant of imposing damages out of all proportion to the negligent conduct

d. Because physically injuring someone is worse than causing them psychiatric harm

e. To avoid the possible disincentive effect of potential compensation awards on potential claimants

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 05 Question 04

4) Which of the following is not necessary in order to establish a duty of care under the so-called Alcock control mechanisms?

a. A close tie of love and affection with the primary victim

1 - the class of persons whose claim should be recognized;

2 - the proximity of the claimant to the accident;

3 - the means by which the shock is caused.

b. A sudden and direct appreciation of a shocking or horrifying event

1 - the class of persons whose claim should be recognized;

2 - the proximity of the claimant to the accident;

3 - the means by which the shock is caused.

c. Proximity to the accident, or its immediate aftermath, in sufficiently close time and space

1 - the class of persons whose claim should be recognized;

2 - the proximity of the claimant to the accident;

3 - the means by which the shock is caused.

d. The claimant is within the ‘zone of danger’.

1 - the class of persons whose claim should be recognized;

2 - the proximity of the claimant to the accident;

3 - the means by which the shock is caused.

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 05 Question 05

5) In which case did Lord Lloyd say the following?

‘Once it is established that the defendant is under a duty of care to avoid causing personal injury to the claimant, it matters not whether the injury in fact sustained is physical or psychiatric or both …’

a. Page v Smith

b. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

c. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

d. Chadwick v British Railways Board

Type: true-false

Title: Chapter 05 Question 06

6) It is a well-established principle of law that a defendant owes a duty of care to those who suffer purely psychiatric injuries as a result of going to the rescue of another.

a. True

b. False

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 05 Question 07

7) By whom was it said that the law in relation to recovery for pure psychiatric harm was so far beyond judicial repair that ‘the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further?’

a. Lord Steyn

b. Lord Hoffmann

c. Lord Goff

d. Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 05 Question 08

8) Which case is Lord Goff drawing an analogy with in the following extract from White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police?

‘Suppose that there was a terrible train crash and that there were two … brothers living nearby, both of them small and agile window cleaners distinguished by their courage and humanity. Mr A … worked on the front half of the train, and Mr B … on the rear half. It so happened that, although there was some physical danger present in the front half of the train, there was none in the rear. Both worked for 12 hours or so bringing aid and comfort to the victims. Both suffered PTSD in consequence of the general horror of the situation. On the new control mechanism now proposed, Mr A would recover but Mr B would not. To make things worse, the same conclusion must follow even if Mr A was unaware of the existence of the physical danger present in his half of the train. This is surely unacceptable’.

a. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

b. Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd

c. Chadwick v British Railways Board

d. McLoughlin v O’Brian

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 05 Question 09

9) According to what they said, why did the court allow the claimant’s claim in Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd?

a. He was in the zone of danger of physical injury.

b. He was an unwitting agent.

c. He had a close tie of love and affection with the injured party.

d. He was a rescuer.

Type: true-false

Title: Chapter 05 Question 10

10) Occupational stress is not recoverable in the tort of negligence.

a. True

b. False