INTRODUCTION
PSYCHIATRIC HARM:
Psychiatric harm is indeed a category of personal damage.
• Our judges distinguish among physical and psychiatric harm, having separate rules about
each.
• Damage to one's mental state are not always associated with physical injury.
Somehow doesn't include grief, sadness, or discomfort - not most mental alterations are
curable. Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co [2007] confirms this.
DIFFERENT RULES:
The court stated to be challenging to draw any line among extreme bereavement or
psychological disease.




Mental claims were more questionable as physical trauma allegations. Concerned that
there might be more ridiculous claims, the enhanced criteria were warranted. The
impact on possible applicants.
Others speculated that the abundance of reimbursement for intentional infliction of
emotional distress would induce some applicants to postpone seeking treatment in
order to pursue settlement.
Concerns about 'Floodgate'. It was feared because lowering the complaint threshold
would result in a deluge of new claims. Possible injustice to the accused - crushing
responsibility.
Concerns that imposing this level of culpability on a criminal may be unjust. For
example, the Hillsborough disaster was aired, and dozens of individuals were present.
CASE STUDY OF ZOE Vs ODOURFREE GAS COMPANY:
The Odourfree Gas Company was working on damaged pipes just outside the School gates.
When the work was in process, there was an explosion due to negligence of one of the workers
of Odourfree Gas Company workers. Many deaths and injuries were reported.
Zoe was working as a police officer nearby, she rushed to help the injured ones. Due to which
she suffered from a long term depression.
TYPES OF VICTIMS:
There are two types of victims that include primary and secondary victims.

PRIMIRAY VICTIM:
Continues to suffer mental harm as a consequence of an event that occurred to him (physically
hurt is not required).

SECONDARY VICTIM:
Endures psychiatric trauma due to witnessing/being alerted about an accident that has
occurred to another person.
Primary Victim:
1. Did suffer unforeseeable injury.
2. The conditions have changed; formerly, tangible manifestations of intentional infliction
of emotional distress were required for culpability to be granted (Dulieu v White).
3. This must now only be a clinically diagnosed ailment.
Secondary Victim:
Various characteristics that restrict legal responsibility:
1. Normal Fortitude - the injured party must be aware of the possibility of intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Alcock
2. Connection Proximity - must be present in claim.
3. Closeness of Space and Time - the period of time seen between incident and your
becoming aware of it.
4. The method through which the impact was produced - it must have been a quick jolt, not a
sustained exposure.
PYSCHIATRIC DISORDER:
The constitution does not explicitly all mental damages similarly. However, the legislation
specifies that psychiatric harm should show in a clinically acknowledged disease in order to
distinguish between genuine or illegitimate complaints. Within past, genuine complaints was
founded on the concept of "nervous shock," but presently, allusions to post-traumatic trauma
exposure (PTSD) as well as other officially recognized psychiatric diseases are more common.
CLAIMANT 1:
1. Did the claimant suffered a recognized psychiatric injury?
No, Zoe didn’t suffered from a recognized psychiatric injury as according to the condition given
she suffered from a long time stress.
Following are the conditions for a recognized psychiatric injury:
According to the kind and severity of the medical negligence, a medical certificate from a
therapist or a doctor may be needed. Both of these are capable of providing expert
medicine testimony in a court claim for compensation. Psychiatrists and psychologists can
work together in a clinical context, although they play separate responsibilities.
It is critical to understand the distinction between the two specialties in medical law. A
psychiatrist is a legally licensed physician who has completed almost five years of training
like a physician while working in general clinical medicine before pursuing additional
specialized training in assisting patients with psychiatric difficulties.
The following are signs of a psychological injury produced by an incident or stressful event:







Recurrent dreams or flashes to the occurrence
Sleeplessness
Nervousness
Anxiety attacks
Panic disorder
Excessive vigilance
Suicidal ideation.
2. Was claimant primary or secondary victim?
Zoe was a primary victim because she was directly involved in the accident.
Primary victim conditions:






A major sufferer is typically an individual who may fairly be expected to experience pain
harm as a consequence of the plaintiff's activities.
Serious (though erroneous) concern for personal safety
Realistic (but incorrect) fear of physical damage
Situations that might result in special damages despite in a person with "moderate
fortitude"
An individual is not required to experience bodily harm to be considered a primary
victim.
In the overwhelming bulk of medical negligence instances: - the client will be considered
the principal victim - no one else will be considered
CLAIMANT 2:
1. Did the claimant suffered a recognized psychiatric injury?
Yes, John suffered from a recognized psychiatric injury as according to the condition given
he suffered from post-traumatic stress for three years.
2. Was claimant primary or secondary victim?
John was a primary victim because he was directly involved in the accident.
CLAIMANT 3:
1. Did the claimant suffered a recognized psychiatric injury?
Yes, Francis suffered from a recognized psychiatric injury as according to the condition given
he suffered from anxiety first which is not a recognized but after hearing about his daughter
he was in a great shock.
2. Was claimant primary or secondary victim?
Francis was a secondary victim because he was not directly involved in the accident. He
heard the news via television.
CLAIMANT 4:
1. Did the claimant suffered a recognized psychiatric injury?
Yes, Jenny suffered from a recognized psychiatric injury as according to the condition given
she suffered from deep traumatic response which is a part of PTSD.
2. Was claimant primary or secondary victim?
Jenny was a primary victim because she witnessed the incident.
QUESTION 2:
VISITORS:
A visitor is a person who has been granted stated or implicit authorization to visit the property.
So, whether somebody that has been specifically asked to access the building or an individual
who has authorization to be there.
Section 2(6) states anyone who accessing properties for whatever reason in the exercising of a
legitimate authority, such as authorities with arrest warrants and officials authorised by
legislation to access properties, are guests.
Lawful visitors are owed the duty of care under OLA 1957 whereas unlawful visitor are
dealt in OLA 1984
Both acts deal with broad and no technical terms leading to interpretation issues
The common duty of care is the responsibility to take appropriate precautions to ensure that
now the guest is relatively safe when utilizing the facilities for something like the goal for that
he has been requested by the owner to visit.
SKILLED VISITORS:
An occupier has the right to assume that an individual engaged in his business will recognize
and protect against every specific hazards associated with his profession.
Several domestic servants killed after poisoning with carbon monoxide while sweeping the
chimney of a furnace in Roles v Nathan. Workers had already been advised to not operate
whereas the furnace was always on fire. The occupant wasn't really held accountable because,
firstly, they had already been told of the hazard and, then, it was right to expect an expert to
understand and protect even against risks deriving out from fault that he was brought in here
to cope with.
It is a justification for owner to demonstrate that faulty condition of the property is the result of
poor building, repairing, or management work performed by an admin assistant, given that It is
acceptable to delegate labor to a vendor. It depends on the situation as well as the form of the
task to be completed if it was fair to commit the job to a contracting company.
Reasonable resources:
It was appropriate to leave the job to a general consultant, and the occupant took reasonable
precautions to ensure the contractor's competence.
Ever more complicated the job, the further acceptable it is to delegate it to a company.
Therefore, in Haseldine v CA Daw & Son Limited, a tenant wasn't really held accountable for an
individual company's carelessness in operating an elevator in a block of apartments.
In comparison, in Woodward v Mayor of Hastings, the occupants were held accountable for a
cleaner's carelessness in keeping a step inside an icy state. Clearing a step doesn't really
necessitate any special abilities.
Allurements:
A tenant should take care to keep youngsters away from allures.
A kid ate toxic strawberries while visiting a nature preserve in Glasgow Corporation v
Taylor. This was decided that the occupants are responsible because they understood the
strawberries were dangerous and did nothing to keep them out.
• Allurements are defined. Allurements were described by Hamilton LJ in Latham v R Johnson
and Nephew Limited as any-thing involving the concept of 'camouflage and astonishment, of an
impression of security beneath conditions disguising an actuality of peril'. As a result, the
situation of a youngster playing with such a pile of rocks had no solution because rocks do not
include any component of enticements.
CASE 1:
Q1: Are they visitor or trespasser?
Arthur and Taniya and their daughter and his friends were visitor as they planned to visit the
park on the other hand they didn’t visited by passing near it.
Q2: Is warning enough or not?
Yes warning is enough in this case as they have already wrote it in the entrance of the park that
“Tree climbing is strictly forbidden. Visitors to this park enter at their own risk. Everpool City
Council shall not be liable for any loss or damage sustained by visitors, howsoever caused”.
CASE 2:
Q1: Are they visitor or trespasser?
Trever was flying a kite in the park and his kite got struck in the tree. He is a trespasser as he
entered the park to get his kite without permission.
Q2: Does occupier owns a duty towards him?
Yes because it was an allurement to Trever.
QUESTION 3:
TRESPASS TO THE LAND:
Land trespass takes place when an individual accesses or resides on someone else's land against
authorization, or sets or projects anything just on property.
Land trespass occurs when an individual accesses another's property without authorization or
continues on the property, or establishes or constructions. This lawsuit is enforceable despite
requiring proof of harm.
Nuisance, on the contrary hand, is an unintentional disturbance with someone else's usage
enjoyment of property that typically entails confirmation of harm to be legal.
HOW TRESPAS TO LAND HAPPENS:
1. Entering on land:
Trespass to land is defined as going into property without access, not leaving when
authorization was already revoked, or hurling abuse onto ground. See, for instance,
Basely v Clarkson (1681), 3 Lev 37.
2. Airspace:
It is possible to conduct trespass through into air much above terrain. D constituted
trespass in Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co [1957] 2 QB 334 by enabling an advertisement
sign to protrude 8 inches onto P's estate at floor level as well as another over ground
surface.
It is worth noting that Section 76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act of 1982 states that neither
action shall proceed in annoyance or trespass only because of the lawful passage of an
airplane over any land. However, Section 76(2) creates a legal claim right for bodily
harm caused by airplanes, enforceable albeit without evidence of carelessness.
3. Beneath the ground:
The Ds dug from own land towards the P's property in Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne
[1899] AC 351. This has been deemed trespass on the subsurface.
This tort was created to preserve a person's unique ownership of the land, so only an
individual with exclusive ownership of the property can claim.
As a result, neither a landowner nor a tenancy agreement or a licensed has the exclusive
control of rental asset. A renter or occupy, on the other hand, does.
Among the remedies are:


Harm (which would be minimal when there is very minor disturbance to
property).
A prohibition to avoid future trespasses (at the order of the court).

A land restoration lawsuit if an individual has indeed been dispossessed of
legitimate title to the property.
TRESPASS TO THE PERSON:
Trespass to person is a crime that occurs regularly in ordinary life. It's indeed essentially
unjustified tampering with a person's body, that can be perpetrated whether by directly
causing hurt or by instilling fear of violence.
The crime of trespass to person evolved into what it is now as a result of various alterations and
revisions. Physically interfering with the individual was granted safeguards in ancient English
law, partially to prevent the unintended outcomes of individuals who took the law into their
personal actions through vengeance assaults. Till the late nineteenth century, when the ancient
forms of litigation were abolished, direct assaults on the persons were shielded by the act of
trespass that needed no evidence of harm.
Trespass to individual is classified as follows: 1. Attack, that is defined as "any behave of an
essence as to arouse a trepidation of battery"; 2. Battery, which is defined as "deliberate as well
as unapproved interaction with complainant's individual or something connected to it and
nearly recognized with that as well"; and 3. Wrongful imprisonment, that is defined as
"unauthorized blockage or poverty of liberty from restriction of progression."
Therefore, any unjustifiable contact with a human with no legal cause constitutes to trespass to
person. The underlying concept of trespass to person is that each individual's body is sacred.
Most likely, just comments do not represent an attack; The intention to act violently, whether
disrespectful or frightening, should be reflected in menacing behaviours, not just in words.
The concern has to be real.


There will be no attack when there is no rational concern. Whenever a rifle is aimed at
someone head, for instance, there is no cause for concern. As just a result, the claimant
should have grounds to assume that accused is capable of carrying out all the threat
with in coming years.
Threats made over the cellphone may be considered an attack if the complainant has
grounds to fear they would be followed out in the near future. Nasty silent phone
conversations are also considered assault.
Assault Necessities:
First one is Intent
Secondly, apparent capacity to carry it out
Third one, nervousness
Lastly, threat awareness.
REFERENCES:
1. All Answers ltd, 'Hinz v Berry - 1970' (Lawteacher.net, December 2022)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/hinz-v-berry.php?vref=1> accessed 22 December
2022
2. All Answers ltd, 'Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire' (Lawteacher.net,
December 2022) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/alcock-v-chiefconstable.php?vref=1> accessed 22 December 2022
3. (Reilly v Merseyside Regional Health Authority)
<https://www.willmalcomson.com/articles/reilly-v-merseyside-regional-healthauthority> accessed December 22, 2022
4. Lloyd E, “A Comprehensive Guide to Proving Psychiatric Injury” (MAPS Medical
February 28, 2022) <https://www.maps-medical.co.uk/insights/a-comprehensive-guideto-proving-psychiatricinjury/#:~:text=Psychiatric%20injury%20definition,Disorder%2C%20Adjustment%20Di
sorder%20and%20depression.> accessed December 22, 2022
5. All Answers ltd, 'Vernon v Bosley - (No. 1)' (Lawteacher.net, December 2022)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/vernon-v-bosley-no-1.php?vref=1> accessed 22
December 2022
6. India legal S, “Swati Shanker” (Concept of trespass to person)
<http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1073/Concept-of-Trespass-To-Person.html>
accessed December 22, 2022
7. “Lecture III. Torts: Trespass and Negligence” [2009] The Common Law 71
8. Shah S and Shah H, “Common Psychiatric Disorders” [2017] Brain and Neurological
Disorders: A Simplified Health Education Guide 333
9. LexisNexis PI & Clinical Negligence expert, “Recognised Psychiatric Illness: Legal
Guidance” (LexisNexisNovember 16, 2022)
<https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/recognised-psychiatric-illness> accessed
December 22, 2022