Guinness v Pickle To assess the potential liability in negligence towards Guinness it is first necessary to determine whether Pickle owed him a duty of care. As Guinness' potential claim involves psychiatric harm the tests in cases such as Alcock and Page v Smith would be used. For there to be a duty of care, according to Page, Guinness would have to have a recognisable psychiatric illness in order to claim. We are aware that Guinness suffered from a form of neurosis following the accident, however, it is unclear from the facts present whether his form is a recognisable psychiatric illness. If it was not, then Pickle would not owe Guinness a duty of care. If, however, Guinness was suffering from an illness that was recognised, then he may …show more content…
Stella would have to be a primary or secondary victim in order to claim, therefore it is necessary to assess her status. As she witnessed the accident via photos broadcast on television she is not a primary victim, according to Page, as she was not in the danger zone of the accident. To determine whether she is able to claim as a secondary victim she would need to fulfil the control mechanisms described in Alcock. As she saw photographs of the accident on the television she could not be described as having witnessed the event with her own senses. Some of the relatives in the Alcock case witnessed through television footage their family members in the fatal crush, however, they were still unable to claim as it was thought that television pictures could not equate to seeing or hearing the event. If the footage was a live television broadcast, instead of photographs, then there may be more of a chance of a successful claim. In the Alcock case, Lord Ackner, argued there may be a situation where the television footage is as great, if not more so, than the original accident, however, Lord Jauncey disagreed and said that a television broadcast did not satisfy the requirements of …show more content…
First it is necessary to establish whether PC McGarry was in the "zone of danger". As he tended to the injured Wormold it is likely that he was very close to the accident, especially as he is a police offer, rather than a medic. As was the case with Guinness, it is unlikely that he would be found to be in the "zone of danger" because he was not, as far as we know, on board the balloon. He also cannot be described as a secondary victim as he does not fulfil the requirements as set out in Alcock. As far as the facts of the case that we know, PC McGarry does not have a close tie of love and affection with the victim, therefore he does not satisfy the
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Sometimes beneficence and non-maleficence can clash in some circumstances, because doing someone harm in the short term, can benefit them in the long term. If the paramedics put a bigger emphasis on Walker getting looked at in the hospital, which would potentially be going against her wishes, it could've saved her life, therefore having a greater long term benefit. When the coroner assessed Walker, it was evident that the traffic accident produced major trauma, more than the paramedics first had assumed. They didn’t perform all trauma assessments which has proven to be potentially a crucial mistake. The coroners report showed that Walker was suffering from a lacerated spleen and multiple rib fractures. Unfortunately, the principle of non-maleficence can be said to of been neglected and therefore the deterioration and death of Nola Walker was the
On the morning of May 17th, 2005, Nola Walker was involved in a two-car collision. Police and Ambulance were dispatched and arrive on scene at the intersection of Kenny and Fernley Street. Ambulance conducted various assessments on Ms. Walker which revealed no major injuries and normal vital signs. Mrs walker denied further medical investigation and denied hospital treatment. Later on, Queensland police conducted a roadside breath test that returned a positive reading, police then escorted Ms. Walker to the cairns police station. Ms. Walker was found to be unconscious, without a pulse and not breathing. An ambulance was called but attempts to revive her failed (Coroner’s Inquest, Walker 2007). The standard of Legal and ethical obligation appeared by paramedics required for this situation are flawed and require further examination to conclude whether commitments of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice were accomplished.
Mr McKinnon must have, under the assumption of risk, known that there was a possibility for the risk of injury resulting in paralysis. Over data collected over a period of six years, showed that a total of 12 players in the rugby league code [1997 – 2002] have suffered from spinal injuries (Carmody D, et.al 2005.) This assumes that Alex must have known the possible risks and under the Civil Liability Act 2002, section 5G, “injured persons presumed to be aware of obvious risks.” Thus resulting in the assumption that he knew what could happen in such a high contact sport. Once again, this can be seen in the case Cafest v. Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210. In this case Julianne Tombleson went roller-skating and broke her right wrist, claiming that she was not properly informed of the risks involved with the activity. However, the court found that there was a myriad of pre-emptive warnings to skaters such as highly visible signs that stated protection gear available for hire and that the rink centre will not be held legally liable to any injuries that may be sustained. This confirms and rectifies the concept of volenti non fit injuria. If the risks are clearly set out and known, one could not claim negligence for compensation, relating to the fact that Alex indisputably would have realised the potential
Although she was undeniably injured and her suffering is provable, she cannot establish that she was injured directly by Bob Barton¡¦s actions. The relevant case law for this situation comes from several cases from Kentucky: 761 S.W.2d 625, 597 S.W.2d 141, 147 S.W. 742, 112 S.W. 600, and 77 S.W. 361 among others. These cases establish the law as defined by the courts that without physical contact a claim for negligence cannot be reputable.
As previously presented, a psychiatric report states that Mary Maloney is not suffering, or has not suffered in the past, any form of mental disorder or illness. Mrs. Maloney did not have schizophrenia, and she was not bipolar, she was not insane. Given the fact that she was not insane still does not mean that it was impossible for her to have “snapped” and done something irrational at that moment. Yet the likely hood of this even occurring is very slim, in fact the chance of it happening is a 0.1 out of 100 chance. It is known that some mental illnesses are hereditary and may have not showed up on current files therefore; we also brought in psychiatric reports from Mary Maloney’s parents and 3 grandparents. All these reports are clean from any mental disorders. Mary Maloney not having a mental disorder was not the only significant evidence in this report. T...
...d, ‘so far as the threshold conditions are concerned, the factor which seems to me to outweigh all others is the prospect than an unidentified, and unidentifiable, carer may inflict further injury on a child he or she has already severely damaged’. This approach was later applied in Merton LBC v K .
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
...rameters and all the aspects of the law that appear in our given scenario we can safely say that any claim that is being made by Tom’s representative by Daria and Samira on the grounds of negligence – breach of duty of care and psychiatric injury would be successful and that even though Harry suffered psychiatric injury his claim won’t be successful since he doesn’t fulfill the necessary parameters in order to make a successful claim.
Stevenson case was a civil one under the Scotland jurisdiction because it was a wrong committed by one person (Stevenson) that led to the ‘shock’ and ‘illness – gastroenteritis’ of another (Mrs. Donoghue). Therefore, under tort laws, there was reason for Mrs. Donoghue to sue Mr. Stevenson who was the manufacturer of the Ginger Beer. Moreover, the defendant was also seeking monetary compensation for the damages done and not a jail sentence or a
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...
Berry that it was intended to impose upon claimants the burden of showing a positive expert diagnosis.” Second, the requirement that the mental injury sustained must be recognized as a psychiatric injury, has shifted the recovery of damages outside of the realm of courts and more into the realm of mental health specialists. Third, by allowing the requirement of recognizable mental injury to exist “accords unequal — that is, less — protection to victims of mental injury” compared to the victims of physical
Due to the fact that brain damage can cause a switch in one's behaviour, I believe that if a criminal act has occurred the individual should not be held responsible for their actions. Different measures should