Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 1 WLR 1970

Facts:

  • Defendant had been drinking with his friend H. With H’s permission D proceeded to drive H’s car, with H himself as a passenger.
  • D was responsible for a serious collision with an oncoming vehicle. H did not suffer any serious injuries but D was left trapped inside the car, unconscious and with a severe head injury.
  • The emergency services arrived which was the claimant, a fire officer and the father of D. Having to attend to his son in such circumstances caused C to develop PTSD and sued D in negligence.

 Issue:

  • Whether, and in what circumstances, a person could be liable in negligence to a close family member for any self-inflicted harm that, having been witnessed by said family member, had caused them suffer lasting psychiatric damage?


 Ratio:

  • The court, finding in favour of C, rejected the claim on policy grounds.
  • Whilst it was correct that C fell within the definition of a secondary victim, a primary victim could not be liable in negligence to a family member as a result of their own self-inflicted injuries.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645

Facts: Crown colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since 1923, declared independence from Britain in 1965 British government considered its UDI to be illegal and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Rhodesian government Before 1965, Madzimbamuto was detained under section 21 of the Regulations Madzimbamuto's wife challenged the legality of her husband's detention, on the grounds that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful Issue: Whether a convention would be enforceable and have legal position of United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia Held: The case reached the Privy Council who rejected the Rhodesian Minister for Law and Order's argument that because of the convention, the United Kingdom legislation overriding the Rhodesian detention law was invalid
Read more

Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567

Facts: C, a burglar, was shot by D as he attempted to gain access to D’s shed. C sued D in negligence and under the 1984 Act. Ratio: CoA rejected D’s attempt to raise the defence of illegality. C was contributorily negligent and his damages decreased by ⅔.
Read more

‘The rise of the judicial use of proportionality has given too much power to judges’. Discuss with reference to relevant cases.

Where people argue that the proportionality test hands too much power to the judiciary in relation to government policies, rather, it hands a schematic tool to the judiciary to ensure that law remains democratic in the broader meaning of the term. How the proportionality test is applied has been significantly nuanced and developed according to context.
Read more