top of page
CELE SQE1 模拟练习

Examination Timing: 00H01M25S

Linda, the mother of an eight-year-old girl who had been seriously injured in a road accident, called her husband Mark at the scene. He heard their daughter's screams and the sounds of the ambulance arriving. The girl died two days later in hospital in Mark's arms. 


Which of the following statements best explains Mark's legal position regarding a claim for psychiatric illness?

< 上一页

You have chosen the incorrect answer.
Your selected option: B

下一页 >

Mark would not succeed in a claim for psychiatric illness because he was not present at the immediate aftermath of the accident, nor had he seen or heard the accident with his own unaided senses. The key case of Boylan v Keegan (2001) illustrates that proximity in both time and space is essential for a claim of psychiatric injury. The claimant must have a direct perception of the accident or its immediate aftermath to establish a duty of care. Hearing the incident over the phone does not satisfy this requirement. 


Key Point: The Boylan v Keegan case underscores the importance of direct sensory perception and proximity to the incident for claims of psychiatric injury. Claimants must be present at the scene or witness the immediate aftermath with their own senses to establish a valid claim.

收集问题

不懂,用中文给我解答

学习 CELE SQE.png
来自 Lucky Lion 的 CELE SQE PASS 祝福_

你好,不用担心,我会用中文帮你解释这个问题。

在这个案例中,Linda的女儿在车祸中受了重伤,她的丈夫Mark在事故现场通过电话听到了女儿的尖叫和救护车到达的声音。女儿两天后在医院去世了。那么,Mark关于精神疾病的索赔能够成功吗?

答案是Mark不能成功提出精神疾病索赔,因为他在事故发生的直接现场和之后的及时救助现场都没有在场。他也没有用自己的感官直接看到或听到事故的发生。根据《Boylan v Keegan(2001)》的判例,这种索赔需要索赔人和事故在时间和空间上有近距离关系。也就是说,索赔人必须亲身感受事故或其直接后果才能建立义务责任。通过电话听到事故发生是不能满足这个要求的。

关键点:Boylan v Keegan案说明了感官直接感知和时间、空间上的近距离关系对于精神疾病索赔的重要性。索赔人必须在现场或通过自己的感官目击直接后果才能建立合法的索赔。

希望这可以帮助你理解。如果你还有其他问题,请随时提问。继续努力,相信你会做得更好!

bottom of page