Timing: 00:00:00
A man was burnt to death in a car accident caused by the negligence of his friend. The man's mistress, of six months, saw his charred body shortly after at the hospital. She subsequently suffered nervous shock.
Which of the following statements best describes whether or not the mistress has a realistic cause of action in negligence against the friend?
< Previous
T/F
Next >
In claims for psychiatric harm, English law requires the claimant to demonstrate "close ties of love and affection" with the victim to succeed. This is part of the criteria established in cases such as Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5, which outlines the need for the claimant to have a sufficiently close relationship with the primary victim. Generally, this presumption applies to spouses, parents, children, and possibly fiancées. Since the mistress only had a six-month relationship with the deceased, she does not meet the threshold for "sufficiently close ties of love and affection." Consequently, she has no realistic cause of action in negligence against the friend.
Key Point: The requirement for close ties of love and affection is crucial in claims for psychiatric harm. Without such ties, a claim for nervous shock is unlikely to succeed, even if the claimant witnessed the aftermath of the event.
Collect Question
userContent
