Apply duty limits for psychiatric injury
Distinguish recognised illness from ordinary grief, and primary-victim analysis from restricted secondary-victim claims.
Exam scope and assessment notes
A Level · section 4.1.5. Original educational scenarios about the law of England and Wales, checked on 14 October 2026. Model answers are formative reasoning, not advice about a real dispute, Cambridge marks or predicted grades. Read the exact statute, case and exam-year source where a rule is disputed or changes. A larger annotated authority bank, full unseen papers and specialist law-teacher review remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read a short source carefully and separate its rule from the facts
- Explain which element a fact supports and what is still uncertain
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
What should a legal problem answer connect?
What you will learn
- Explain primary and secondary victim approaches
- Apply proximity controls, current accident limits and reform arguments
Classify claimant and injury
A recognised psychiatric illness differs from ordinary sorrow, fear or grief. A claimant directly involved in physical danger uses a different duty analysis from someone harmed by witnessing injury to another. Page v Smith is important for qualifying primary victims; not everyone describing themselves as frightened becomes a primary victim.
Secondary-victim claims involve restrictive proximity controls associated with Alcock and McLoughlin: close ties, proximity in time and space to the accident or immediate aftermath, direct perception and foreseeable psychiatric injury in the relevant person. Family labels are not the entire inquiry, and receiving news later is different from directly witnessing the qualifying event.
Read later law and evaluate reform
Paul in 2024 distinguishes witnessing an accident from witnessing a relative's illness or death after negligent medical care. Its majority did not impose the claimed secondary-victim duty in those medical-crisis cases. Study the historical shock terminology alongside the later clarification, including that separate ‘horrifying event’ and sudden-shock hurdles are not additional universal tests.
Critics argue that proximity restrictions draw harsh lines between similarly severe illnesses; defenders point to bounded responsibility, proof and potentially extensive claims. A reform proposal must address both fairness and workable limits. These exercises do not diagnose illness or determine a real person's entitlement.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Does serious illness alone establish every secondary-victim duty requirement?
Worked example
A fictional claimant later receives news of a relative's accident and suffers a recognised illness. Is illness plus relationship alone enough for the secondary-victim claim?
Show the worked solution
- Recognised illness is relevant.
- Relationship is only one duty factor.
- Later news does not establish direct perception or immediate proximity.
Answer Those facts alone do not establish the restrictive secondary-victim duty. Direct perception and proximity to the qualifying accident or immediate aftermath still require analysis; serious illness and sympathy cannot replace them.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Identify two duty factors missing from the later-news example.
Give me a hint
Distinguish news from perception at the scene.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify later receipt of news.
- Check direct perception.
- Check proximity to the accident or immediate aftermath.
Direct perception and proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath have not been established. The relationship and illness do not alone replace those restrictive secondary-victim requirements.
Look for these in your work
- Uses later news
- Uses perception
- Uses proximity
Independent: A bystander is not personally in danger but witnesses another's injury. Is the bystander automatically a primary victim?
Give me a hint
Use involvement in danger, not the label chosen.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify no personal danger as stipulated.
- Distinguish witnessing another's injury.
- Assess the appropriate restricted duty category.
Witnessing another's injury without the relevant personal involvement does not automatically make the bystander a primary victim. The applicable secondary-victim or other recognised duty analysis needs its own requirements.
Look for these in your work
- Uses danger facts
- Distinguishes categories
- Requires duty proof
Application: Evaluate a proposed reform replacing every proximity control with foreseeability alone.
Give me a hint
Consider fairness and bounded responsibility.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain relief for excluded severely ill claimants.
- Consider broad claims and proof difficulties.
- Propose a justified workable boundary.
Foreseeability-only reform could reduce harsh proximity distinctions but also expand uncertain responsibility and proof disputes. A defensible judgement should address the evidence standard, claimant scope and limits rather than treat compassion alone as a complete design.
Look for these in your work
- Explains fairness
- Explains policy cost
- Offers reasoned boundary
Common mistakes
- Equating grief with recognised illness
- Making every relative a primary victim
- Applying pre-2024 medical-crisis reasoning without checking Paul
What can you explain now?
Does serious illness alone establish every secondary-victim duty requirement?
Compare with the explanation
No
The relevant victim category and restrictive duty controls also need proof.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Does serious illness alone establish every secondary-victim duty requirement?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.