Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 Lord Macmillan observed that injury by psychiatric damage is more subtle than physical harm. In this case the defendant was a motorcyclist who crashed and killed himself by his own negligence. The claimant, who was pregnant, did not see the crash but heard it and later saw some blood on the road. She suffered nervous shock as a result and subsequently miscarried her child. It was held that [...]. Whilst it was foreseeable that the defendant might physically harm other road users with his negligent driving, it was not foreseeable that someone in the claimant’s position would suffer nervous shock.
Answer
no duty of care was owed to the claimant

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 Lord Macmillan observed that injury by psychiatric damage is more subtle than physical harm. In this case the defendant was a motorcyclist who crashed and killed himself by his own negligence. The claimant, who was pregnant, did not see the crash but heard it and later saw some blood on the road. She suffered nervous shock as a result and subsequently miscarried her child. It was held that [...]. Whilst it was foreseeable that the defendant might physically harm other road users with his negligent driving, it was not foreseeable that someone in the claimant’s position would suffer nervous shock.
Answer
?

Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 Lord Macmillan observed that injury by psychiatric damage is more subtle than physical harm. In this case the defendant was a motorcyclist who crashed and killed himself by his own negligence. The claimant, who was pregnant, did not see the crash but heard it and later saw some blood on the road. She suffered nervous shock as a result and subsequently miscarried her child. It was held that [...]. Whilst it was foreseeable that the defendant might physically harm other road users with his negligent driving, it was not foreseeable that someone in the claimant’s position would suffer nervous shock.
Answer
no duty of care was owed to the claimant
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
d killed himself by his own negligence. The claimant, who was pregnant, did not see the crash but heard it and later saw some blood on the road. She suffered nervous shock as a result and subsequently miscarried her child. It was held that <span>no duty of care was owed to the claimant. Whilst it was foreseeable that the defendant might physically harm other road users with his negligent driving, it was not foreseeable that someone in the claimant’s position would s

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.