Nervous shock

Indo404

What is the legal position if a child, who is a passenger in a car driving by a car park , sees a helicopter crash in that car park. The child doesn't suffer any personal physical injuries and doesn't see anybody else get injured. The pilot accepted it was an error by him to have attempted to squeeze into the car park.
The child claims she suffered nervous shock. Does she have a claim?
Twelve itinerants witnessed the accident from a halting site nearby. They also claim nervous shock. Do they have a claim?
A man watching the accident on a webcam also claims to have suffered nervous shock. Does he have a claim?

Predalien

You seem a bit cynical, genuine nervous shock or something along the lines of post traumatic stress disorder are very hard conditions to fake. Merely claiming "nervous shock" doesn't mean they will be taken to have suffered. You can't just go to a psychiatrist and ream off the symptoms you read on wiki, you'll get found out fairly quick.

seb65

Proximity in distance and time is a test isn't it?

Child would have the strongest case. Web cam man has no case.

I don't remember the authorities.

Procrastastudy

Very good moot on this a couple of years back. One of the now third years suggested the Gardai had a duty of care owning to control of the scene. IIRC correctly Clarke J was judging it and was quite impressed with the argument, although ultimately unconvinced. It was a broadcast though roughly akin to Hillsbrough.

Incidentally OP Hillbrough is what you want to be reading around. The English HOL decisions in the resulting cases are quite clearly ex post facto and the Irish position clearly (in my very humble opinion) has the moral higher ground.

I'm also sure there is at least an issue here with the 'reasonable man' being given the attributes of a child, as I believe a court would do. It could be possible, although I realise this is second year law student legal fiction, that the egg shell skull rule could apply.

All in all I think an actual case regarding a child would have more to do with savvy negotiating and the want to avoid a court case than the actual legal rules on the subject.

Indo404

seb65 wrote: »

Proximity in distance and time is a test isn't it?

Child would have the strongest case. Web cam man has no case.

I don't remember the authorities.

Would it make a difference if the man watching the webcam recognised his brother as the pilot of the helicopter?

Procrastastudy

Indo404 wrote: »

Would it make a difference if the man watching the webcam recognised his brother as the pilot of the helicopter?

Who is he going to sue? His own brother?

If his (webcam-man) wife was a passenger then there is the remotest possibility it might fly (see what I did there) but this is very nuanced and I cant remember the specifics. I do know in England it wouldn't but here...

Reloc8

Indo404 wrote: »

What is the legal position if a child, who is a passenger in a car driving by a car park , sees a helicopter crash in that car park. The child doesn't suffer any personal physical injuries and doesn't see anybody else get injured. The pilot accepted it was an error by him to have attempted to squeeze into the car park.
The child claims she suffered nervous shock. Does she have a claim?
Twelve itinerants witnessed the accident from a halting site nearby. They also claim nervous shock. Do they have a claim?
A man watching the accident on a webcam also claims to have suffered nervous shock. Does he have a claim?

Yep.

Except the guy on the webcam.

Screw him.

AlarmBelle

Indo404 wrote: »

What is the legal position if a child, who is a passenger in a car driving by a car park , sees a helicopter crash in that car park. The child doesn't suffer any personal physical injuries and doesn't see anybody else get injured. The pilot accepted it was an error by him to have attempted to squeeze into the car park.
The child claims she suffered nervous shock. Does she have a claim?
Twelve itinerants witnessed the accident from a halting site nearby. They also claim nervous shock. Do they have a claim?
A man watching the accident on a webcam also claims to have suffered nervous shock. Does he have a claim?

I got nervous shock reading about it

FreudianSlippers

seb65 wrote: »

Proximity in distance and time is a test isn't it?

Child would have the strongest case. Web cam man has no case.

I don't remember the authorities.

Alcock v Chief Constable Of The Southyorkshire Police is still the base authority for TV style claims. I think Packenham v Irish Ferries is an important factor for the kid here though - what's the psychiatric issue here?

MagicSean

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Alcock v Chief Constable Of The Southyorkshire Police is still the base authority for TV style claims. I think Packenham v Irish Ferries is an important factor for the kid here though - what's the psychiatric issue here?

One of the papers said a rotor came off the helicopter and resulted in the child suffering separation anxiety. I don't know if it was an attempt at a pun or just bad reporting.