Tort Law
| Front | Reasonably foreseeable psychiatric harm (secondary) |
| Back | In an ordinary person (person of normal fortitude) in the claimant’s position‘Thin skull’ rule applies to remoteness, though. So if psychiatric harm is foreseeable, then claimant can claim for all psychiatric harm, even if worsened by predisposition to mental illness, Bryce v Brown. |
| Front | Professional body |
| Back | Not guilty of negligence if acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.But can decide evidence is illogical - this is rare though.Information needs to be mainstream literature at the time. This is 'state of the art' defence in professional context. Doctors must follow changes recognised in mainstream literature, although they need not necessarily be aware of information in more obscure journals. Influence of information online. |
| Front | Primary victims, test |
| Back | 1. Psychiatric harm must be medically recognised2. Physical harm must be reasonably foreseeable3. Normal principles for determining the existence of a duty of care: proximity/ fair, just and reasonable |