In order to establish liability for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury there must be an actual psychiatric injury capable of having resulted from witnessing a traumatic event. Initially liability for psychiatric injury claims were limited to those who feared for their personal safety .In Mcloughlin v O’Brian , Lord Wilberforce stated that the foreseeability of nervous shock was not enough to establish liability and that the term ‘nervous shock’ is out of date. In addition to this per Lord Hoffmann, grief, distress, anxiety and stress will not suffice . For Lou-Ann to be able to make a claim against Ned for psychiatric injury, it must be established whether she is a primary or secondary victim. The distinction between a primary and secondary victim was introduced by Lord Oliver in Alcock v chief Constable of South Yorkshire police . A primary victim is a person who is physically harmed or imperilled by the defendant’s negligence and suffers psychiatric illness as a result . In Lou- Ann’s case she is clearly a primary victim as she was in danger of physical injury as Ned crashed into the back of her car. Ned may argue that since there was no physical injuries, no harm was caused. However the criteria for primary victims was laid down in Page v Smith, it states that in order to qualify as a primary victim the claimant must suffer a psychiatric condition resulting from being present at the scene and in general fear for their own safety . In this case …show more content…
In Mcloughlin v O’Brian , Mrs Mcloughlin met the requirement of proximity of relationship but didn’t meet the other two requirements of Proximity, however Lord Bridge felt that Mrs Mcloughlin was a deserving claimant and she successful with her claim. In addition to this, Jasper may also be successful in his claim against Ned since it can be argued that a person of ‘’reasonable fortitude’’ or customary phlegm would have suffered a nervous