Child wins damages for shock after helicopter crash

Indo404

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1107/1224326239508.html Can somebody explain this. I see no duty of care, no proximity... still an award for damages.

Tom Young

Read the last sentence. Explains everything.

deandean

Snip

Indo404

Indo404 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1107/1224326239508.html Can somebody explain this. I see no duty of care, no proximity... still an award for damages.

It was a nervous shock case I'd imagine although causation (the actual disorder seems like it could have been caused/developed totally independently of the incident) would be a serious problem.

Proximity in nervous shock cases is a pretty controversial area in this jurisdiction too.

Indo404

Tom Young wrote: »

Read the last sentence. Explains everything.

"She was awarded a €10,000 settlement from insurers on the part of the defendants."

Still not clear to me... Please explain.

Thanks.

Condatis

On first thought it seems to be a nonsense.

Should a bus crash and catch fire due to negligent behavior by it's driver could an uninvolved bystander sue the owner of the bus in like manner?

Markcheese

A slight side note... Friend of my wife had a crash a few years ago, she claimed,got a payout. Separately her young son ( who was and still is quite affected by the crash)also claimed.. His compensation was placed in trust till he's 18.. Thing is he's going through state system, for counciling ect at the moment .. Waiting lists and limited access ...so he's likely to be an 18 year old with issues and cash ... As opposed to a well adjusted teen...
Is the cash pay- out supposed to be a reward for injury ??

Peregrinus

What's the problem? If you negligently land a helicopter in a car park (which was admitted) it's forseeable that you'll injure someone who may be in the car park. So there's your negligence, and there's your forseeability, and there seems to have been clear evidence of injury (nervous shock). What's missing?

Robbo

Indo404 wrote: »

"She was awarded a €10,000 settlement from insurers on the part of the defendants."

Still not clear to me... Please explain.

Thanks.

Insurers.

Rather than risk the costs of the matter being heard, you'll have a claims handler weigh up the costs of successfully defending, the likely payout if the claim succeeds and the ability of the plaintiff to cover costs and then just agree to settle the matter for small money.

And they'll spend the next age dragging their feet writing a cheque.

All in the game, yo.

Indo404

Peregrinus wrote: »

What's the problem? If you negligently land a helicopter in a car park (which was admitted) it's forseeable that you'll injure someone who may be in the car park.

Please read first. The car wasn't in the car park!

Peregrinus

Condatis wrote: »

On first thought it seems to be a nonsense.

Should a bus crash and catch fire due to negligent behavior by it's driver could an uninvolved bystander sue the owner of the bus in like manner?

Yes, if the bystander suffers nervous shock as a result of witnessing the crash. There's nothing new in this.

Peregrinus

Indo404 wrote: »

Please read first. The car wasn't in the car park!

True, but I don't see that that matters. The car was close enough for the child to witness the accident, and it was forseeable that anyone close enough to the accident to witness it might suffer nervous shock, whether they were in the car park or not.

Peregrinus

Markcheese wrote: »

A slight side note... Friend of my wife had a crash a few years ago, she claimed,got a payout. Separately her young son ( who was and still is quite affected by the crash)also claimed.. His compensation was placed in trust till he's 18.. Thing is he's going through state system, for counciling ect at the moment .. Waiting lists and limited access ...so he's likely to be an 18 year old with issues and cash ... As opposed to a well adjusted teen...
Is the cash pay- out supposed to be a reward for injury ??

It's supposed to be compensation, and as far as the law and the courts are concerned it can be accessed for medical treatment, including psychological counselling, if that will be of benefit to him. If it has been locked up in a trust where it cannot be used for any purposes at all until he turns 18, that is probably the result of a well-meant decision by his parents, not a restriction imposed by the courts.

Indo404

Peregrinus wrote: »

What's the problem? If you negligently land a helicopter in a car park (which was admitted) it's forseeable that you'll injure someone who may be in the car park. So there's your negligence, and there's your forseeability, and there seems to have been clear evidence of injury (nervous shock). What's missing?

Was it reasonably forseeable that
(i) the accident would happen (ii) that the child passing by in a car would witness it (iii) that she would suffer nervous shock as opposed to just a fright? Not having suffered a personal injury herself and not having witnessed anyone else in the helicopter who suffered a personal injury. Does this go further than the principles of general negligence, as opposed to the standard required to recover damages for nervous shock as set out by the Supreme Court?I don't think so.

PS 1 The plaintiff must establish that he or she actually suffered "nervous shock". This term has been used to describe "any recognisable psychiatric illness" and a plaintiff must prove that he or she suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness if he or she is to recover damages for "nervous shock"....

2. The plaintiff must establish that his or her recognisable psychiatric illness was "shock induced"....

3. A plaintiff must prove that the nervous shock was caused by a defendant's act or omission ....

4. The nervous shock sustained by a plaintiff must be by reason of actual or apprehended physical injury to the plaintiff or a person other than the plaintiff ....

5. If a plaintiff wishes to recover damages for negligently inflicted nervous shock he must show that the defendant owed him or her a duty of care not to cause him a reasonably foreseeable injury in the form of nervous shock. It is not enough to show that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk of personal injury generally."

There does not appear to be any evidence of satisfying 4. ie No evidence that someone in the helicopter suffered personal injuries or that the child herself suffered personal injuries (save for the anxiety disorder which it is claimed afterwards)

Robbo

Indo404 wrote: »

There does not appear to be any evidence of satisfying 4. ie No evidence that someone in the helicopter suffered personal injuries or that the child herself suffered personal injuries (save for the anxiety disorder which it is claimed afterwards)

Apprehended personal injury is what we're dealing with here which if I remember correctly was in Curran -v- Cadbury.

Condatis

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, if the bystander suffers nervous shock as a result of witnessing the crash. There's nothing new in this.

That's interesting. I'm surprised that this has not become an alternative focus for some of the "slip and claim" brigade.

Procrastastudy

Err... this was settled. Doesn't really matter what the legalities of it was.