Negligence Duty And Causation

The full citation for Nettleship v Weston [*] is:
Nettleship v Weston [*] * QB *
Do you need any more information regarding this case or any other legal matters?

The full citation for Latimer v AEC [*] is:
Latimer v AEC Ltd [*] AC *
Is there any other legal information you need assistance with?

The full citation for Bolton v Stone [*] is:
Bolton v Stone [*] AC *
Is there anything else you need assistance with?

The full citation for Dryden [*] is:
Dryden v Johnson Matthey Plc [*] UKSC *
Is there any other legal information you need assistance with?

The ratio decidendi (legal reasoning) in Dryden v Johnson Matthey Plc [*] UKSC * was that the Supreme Court held that the claimants had suffered actionable personal injury because exposure to platinum salts had caused them to become sensitised, which materially increased the risk of an allergic reaction, thereby impairing their bodily function.
Is there any other legal information you need assistance with?

The full citation for Harris v Perry [*] is:
Harris v Perry [*] EWCA Civ *
Is there any other legal information you need assistance with?

The full citation for Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis [*] is:
Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [*] AC *
Do you need any further assistance with legal information?

The full citation for Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [*] is:
- Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [*] * WLR *
Do you need any more information regarding this case or any other legal matters?

The full citation for Robinson v CC West Yorkshire Police [*] is:
- Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [*] UKSC *
Do you need any more information regarding this case or any other legal matters?

The ratio decidendi (legal reasoning) in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [*] was that the court held that the fire service was not liable for the injuries caused. The decision emphasized the balance between the risk of harm and the importance of the emergency situation. The court concluded that the utility of saving a life outweighed the risk taken in transporting equipment without proper security.
Do you need any further assistance with legal information?

The ratio decidendi in Ward v London County Council [*] was that the court held the council liable for the injuries caused to the child. It was determined that the council had a duty of care to ensure the safety of children and that they breached this duty, resulting in the accident.
Is there any other legal information you need assistance with?

In Ward v London County Council [*], the court found the council liable for breaching its duty of care, emphasizing the responsibility to ensure safety.
In Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [*], the court prioritized the emergency situation, concluding the fire service's action to save a life justified the risk taken.
Would you like more details on any specific aspects of these cases?

In situations of negligence where an ambulance is delayed, the authority used often includes the following:
- Kent v Griffiths [*]: The court held that an ambulance service owed a duty of care to respond promptly once an emergency call was accepted. Failure to do so without a reasonable excuse may constitute negligence.
Is there a specific situation or detail you need more information on?

A delayed ambulance can materially increase the risk of harm or materially contribute to the harm. The key case here is Kent v Griffiths [*], where the court found that delays in ambulance services can constitute negligence if it worsens the patient's condition.
Is there a specific aspect of this situation you'd like more information on?

The ratio decidendi (legal reasoning) in Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [*] AC * HL was that the House of Lords held the Home Office liable for the damage caused by the borstal boys. It established that a duty of care was owed by the authorities to the victims when their negligence directly resulted in foreseeable damage.
Is there any other legal information you need assistance with?

The ratio decidendi in Lamb v LB Camden [*] * All ER * was that the local authority was not liable for the damage caused by intervening acts of third parties (squatters), which were not reasonably foreseeable. The court emphasized the importance of foreseeability in determining liability for subsequent losses.
Is there any other legal information you need assistance with?

The authority relevant in situations where a third party helps an injured patient while waiting for an ambulance is the "Good Samaritan" principle. However, this doesn't limit the ambulance team's liability for negligence if their delay worsens the patient's condition.
Is there a specific case or detail you need more information on?

The "Good Samaritan" principle generally protects individuals who voluntarily assist others in an emergency, provided they act reasonably and without gross negligence. The ambulance team's liability is not typically reduced if a Good Samaritan's actions inadvertently worsen the patient's condition.
Do you need more information on how the Good Samaritan principle is applied in specific cases?

The ratio decidendi in *Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [*] AC * HL* was that the House of Lords held the Home Office liable for the damage caused by the borstal boys. It established that authorities owe a duty of care to the victims when their negligence directly results in foreseeable damage.
Do you need assistance with any other legal matters?

The general ratio in *Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [*] AC * HL* is that authorities or individuals in a supervisory role can be held liable for the actions of those under their control if their negligence leads to foreseeable harm.
Is there a specific case or legal matter you need more details on?

The ratio decidendi in *Jackson v Murray [*] UKSC ** is that the Supreme Court held both the driver and the child pedestrian partially liable for the accident. The court emphasized the concept of contributory negligence, reducing the child's damages by *% due to her own negligence.
Is there any other legal information you need assistance with?

The facts of the case *Jackson v Murray [*] UKSC ** are as follows:
- A *-year-old girl, stepped into the path of an oncoming car after alighting from a school bus and was struck.
- The driver was found to be driving too fast and failed to see her in time.
- The court concluded both parties were negligent, attributing *% of the fault to each.
Do you need any more details or assistance with another legal matter?

Alighting means getting off or disembarking from a vehicle, such as a bus or train.
Do you have any other legal terms or concepts you need clarification on?

Both parties could still be liable for negligence even if the driver was not speeding. Negligence depends on whether they breached their duty of care. For the driver, factors like failure to keep a proper lookout could be relevant. For the pedestrian, it could be stepping into traffic without due care.
Is there a specific detail about the incident you need more information on?

Contributory negligence means that if a person is partially responsible for their own injuries or damages, their compensation from the other party may be reduced. This principle applies when both parties have contributed to the harm through their negligent actions.
Is there a specific case or situation you need more details on?

In England, contributory negligence can apply to children, but courts consider the child's age and understanding. For a *-year-old, courts are less likely to find contributory negligence compared to older children or adults.
Do you need information on how to proceed if you believe someone was at fault in this situation?

The full citation for Jackson v Murray [*] is:
- Jackson v Murray [*] UKSC *
Is there any other legal information you need assistance with?

The case *Jackson v Murray [*] UKSC ** involved a *-year-old girl who was struck by a car when she stepped into the road after getting off a school bus. The Supreme Court found both the driver and the child partially liable for the accident, with a *% reduction in the child's damages due to contributory negligence.
Is there a specific detail or aspect of the case you need more information on?

To claim negligence for psychiatric damage in England, you need to establish:
- A duty of care was owed by the defendant.
- There was a breach of this duty.
- The breach caused psychiatric injury.
- The psychiatric injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach.
Is there a specific situation or case you need further details on?

To claim negligence for psychiatric injury in England, the prerequisites are:
- The claimant must be a primary or secondary victim.
- A duty of care must have been breached.
- The psychiatric injury must be a recognized medical condition.
- The injury must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach.
Is there a specific case or detail you need more information on?

In England, the duty of care for psychiatric harm is generally more limited for secondary victims (those not directly involved in the incident). The following must be met:
- Proximity to the event: The claimant must be closely related to the victim.
- Witnessing the event: The claimant must witness the event or its immediate aftermath.
- Psychiatric injury: The injury must be a recognized medical condition.
Based on the scenario, the news broadcaster or the person reporting the incident would not typically owe a duty of care to the grandmother. The primary duty of care rests with the person responsible for the accident (e.g., the driver) towards the directly involved parties.
Do you need more information on pursuing a claim for such psychiatric injury?

The DSM-* stands for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. It's a classification and diagnostic tool published by the American Psychiatric Association, used by clinicians and researchers to diagnose and classify mental disorders.
Is there a specific legal context related to mental health you need more information on?

It seems like you're asking for information on the type of diagnosis related to psychiatric harm in a legal context. Diagnoses that might be considered in legal cases involving psychiatric injury claims include:
- Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
- Depression
- Anxiety Disorders
- Adjustment Disorders
These diagnoses should be made by a qualified medical professional according to criteria in the DSM-*.
Is there a specific legal scenario or case you need more information on regarding psychiatric harm?

Yes, grief can also mean distress. Grief typically refers to the emotional suffering one feels after losing someone or something significant, while distress is a broader term for severe anxiety or pain. Both terms can overlap in the context of emotional pain.
Is there a specific legal context involving grief or distress you're looking into?

The ratio decidendi in *Hambrook v Stokes [*]* is that the court recognized a claim for psychiatric harm suffered by a mother who witnessed her children's danger from a distance, without physically witnessing the accident. It established that proximity and foreseeability are key in claims for psychiatric injury.
Is there anything else you need assistance with?

In *Hambrook v Stokes [*]*, the facts were:
- A mother saw a runaway lorry descending a hill towards her children.
- She did not witness the actual accident but feared for their safety.
- This fear and shock led to her suffering psychiatric harm.

Would you like more details on the legal principles established in this case?

The judgment in *Hambrook v Stokes [*]* was that the court allowed the claim for psychiatric injury. It held that a duty of care could extend to secondary victims who suffer psychiatric harm due to fear for the safety of their loved ones, even if they did not witness the accident directly.
Do you need more information on how this case impacts other legal principles or cases?

In *Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [*]*, the ratio decidendi was that for secondary victims to claim psychiatric harm, they must:
- Have close ties of love and affection with the primary victim.
- Be proximate to the event or its immediate aftermath.
- Have directly perceived the event with their own unaided senses.
- The psychiatric injury must be reasonably foreseeable.
Is there a specific aspect of this case you'd like to explore further?