If the shock is foreseeable the exact nature of the

Info icon This preview shows pages 53–55. Sign up to view the full content.

If the shock is foreseeable the exact nature of the plaintiffs illness need not be foreseeable. (Mount Isa Pines v Pusey) S 72(2 ) Gives guidance by what is meant by phrase “in the circumstances of the case.” So normal fortitude is supported if Include following four factors (None decisive in themselves, but do point to normal fortitude: o Whether mental harm suffered by P due to sudden shock 1. Where P suffers harm from a shocking event, for eg. Seeing a major collision in front of them. (Probably easier to make out ‘normal fortitude’ here than in mental injury that occurs over a long period of time.) o Whether P witnessed person being killed, put in danger If you witnessed person being killed, etc, it makes it more likely that a person with normal fortitude would suffer psychiatric injury. If you heard about it hours later, then that goes against you. o Rship between P and person killed and put in danger The closer the rship between P and initial victim the more likely it is that a person of normal fortitude will suffer mental injury (your best friend being run over as opposed to a stranger.) o If there is pre-existing relationship between P and D More likely to satisfy fortitude test is if they were closely related. s 72(3) EXCEPTION TO ABOVE Does not affect doc if D knew P was susceptible to mental injury and person of less than normal fortitude. Normal fortitude requirement does not have to be satisfied. However normal fortitude will apply to most cases (unless there was a special pre-existing relationship or prior interaction between parties) These 2 differ from pre-existing CL: sudden shock and direct perception are relevant to normal fortitude element. In CL, these were factors in their own
Image of page 53

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

In situation where suffered shock due to seeing somebody else being injured or killed, there are future requirements needed in addition to normal fortitude requirement S 73 (1): Applies to liability to P from mental injury due to seeing harm to someone else (this provision is more of an introduction) S 73(2): In cases of this sought cannot recover damages unless witnessed at scene the person being killed, injured or put in peril or was in a close relationship (Winds back previous CL position/ as people were able to recover damages from people who had not seen accident or were not in a close relationship.) S 73(3): No damages for pure metal harm if the initial victim was unable to recover from the defendant. (Not necessary that victim has successfully sued D. Just show that he could have.) (ii) Other significant factors (salient features) Further factors P must consider in order to establish duty of care is owed ( Second part) Tame v NSW (2002) HC(‘False drunkeness’) Facts P involved in minor car accident. Police called to seen and relevant police officer wrote out police report and mistake made stating Mrs Tame had been drunk at the time of accident (the blood alcohol prescribed to her was actually the alcohol level of the other driver). Mistake quickly identified and rectified. But for a little while it read that it was P who was drink driver and not the other party.
Image of page 54
Image of page 55
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern