Describe, giving reasons, how a judge in the High Court might approach Essay

Describe, broad reasons, how a judge in the High Court might approach claims for nervous shock (psychiatric wound) from the de - leaven ExampleThe match father who was at the arena during the disaster also experienced psychiatric blur but was still able to help the injured others. Issue Whether or not the psychiatric injury claim of the deceased boys grandmother, mother and father would prosper. Cause of Action Cause of put to death in the instant scenario shall be analyzed in reference to the case of Dulieu v White (1901), a landmark precedent. In that case, the High Court granted the plaintiffs claim for nervous shock. The suspects negligent act actually fearfulnessened a pregnant woman which eventually caused her to miscarry. assay Kennedy J set forth the following requireds for filing a psychiatric injury claim (1) the panic or shock whether mere or substantial is followed by a physical disparage (2) the fright or shock is a natural result of the defendants negligence (3) the physical damage done is not too remote to support the claim. Phillimor J added one more requirement, that is, there should be a legal obligation on the defendants part not to frighten away or shock the plaintiff by his or her negligent act. All of the mentioned requisites should be present in arrange for cause of action to exist. The respective situations of the deceased twins grandmother, mother and father shall be subjected to analysis. As to the twins grandmother and mother, it is contended that they have no cause of action. First, no consequent physical damage has transpired after they were frightened. Notably, the ii were merely watching the whole event on television. Stated otherwise, they were not located in the manoeuvre of incidence. Although their fright can be regarded as a normal result of the defendants (the stadium possessor) negligence, still the third and fourth requisites are not complied with. The remoteness of the physical damage done shall not be de alt with since there was no physical damage to speak of in the rootage place. As the spirited was aired on television, the stadium owner had a duty to prevent any circumstance that would frighten the audience. In the given scenario, the horrific event was unluckily televised which shocked the boys grandmother and mother. In that respect, the stadium owner is negligent. James and Christophers father has also no cause of action. Despite the fact that their father was at the place of incidence, it is to be presumed that he did not suffer any physical damage. It was just stated that he too experienced nervous shock and administered first aid to the injured others. Needless to say, the first requisite is absent. His fright however is a normal effect of the defendants negligence. The third requisite is not an issue in this instance. Based on the stated findings, a High Court judge go forth declare that the twins grandmother, mother and father have no cause of action to file a case for psychiatric injury. Each of them may have complied with the second and fourth requisites but they failed to pass the first and third conditions. This is in pursuance to its simple approach based on the exclusive elements of psychiatric injury. judicial Standing In the present scenario, legal standing (locus standi) shall be discussed in light of the principles enunciated in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1992). Alcock was one of the injured victims in a crowd crush. In this case, the court did not uphold the plaintiffs claim for nervous shock. The House of Lords promulgated twain requisites for one to have a legal standing in