Rescuers and primary victim status in psychiatric injury claims
Amara, an off-duty nurse, is driving on a motorway in England when she comes upon a serious collision caused by the negligence of a lorry driver, Piotr. She stops and spends an hour helping injured strangers from their cars, some of whom die. Traffic has been stopped, and at no point was she in any physical danger or did she reasonably believe she was. She has no relationship with any of the victims. She later develops post-traumatic stress disorder and sues Piotr.
Which of the following best describes Amara's likely position?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: Her claim is likely to fail, because a rescuer not exposed to physical danger, nor reasonably believing she is, is not a primary victim, and she has no close tie with any victim.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A rescuer is a primary victim only if exposed, or reasonably believing herself exposed, to physical danger; otherwise she must satisfy the secondary victim rules, including a close tie with a victim.
Rescuers and primary victim status in psychiatric injury claims
Claimants for negligently caused psychiatric injury are divided into primary victims and secondary victims. In White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (Frost), as summarised by the Supreme Court in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1, the House of Lords held that the category of primary victims is limited to persons exposed, or who reasonably perceived themselves to be exposed, to physical danger. Being a rescuer does not by itself make someone a primary victim. Amara was never in physical danger and did not believe she was, so she is not a primary victim. She can recover only if she satisfies the restrictive rules for secondary victims, which require, among other things, a close tie of love and affection with a person killed, injured or imperilled in the accident. She had no relationship with any of the victims, so her claim is likely to fail despite her courage and her genuine illness.
Why B is wrong: White (Frost) rejected the argument that rescuers are automatically primary victims; exposure to physical danger is required.
Why C is wrong: Foreseeability of psychiatric injury is not enough for a claimant outside the zone of danger; the secondary victim control mechanisms apply.
Why D is wrong: The Page v Smith approach applies only to primary victims within the range of foreseeable physical injury, which Amara was not.
Why E is wrong: A rescuer who is exposed to physical danger, or reasonably believes she is, can recover as a primary victim.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Secondary victims after Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust
Which of the following best describes whether Mei can recover damages as a secondary victim?
Police duty of care for positive acts during an arrest (Robinson v CC West Yorkshire)
Which of the following best describes whether the officers owed Edna a duty of care?
The omissions principle: when a duty to prevent harm arises
In which of the following situations is a duty of care to prevent the harm most likely to arise?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.