Martin's case

Résumé du document

It was Sunday afternoon, Martin and his best friend Jonathan was on their way to watch their favorite rugby team, Leeds Rhinos play in the Super League Final. Unfortunately, Martin lost his ticket and was not allowed into the stadium. So, Martin went to the local pub, about 500 meters away to watch the match on TV and Jonathan went into the stadium. Inside the stadium, Jonathan bumped into Martin's sister, Carol who was also on her own; Jonathan invited Carol to take Martin's empty seat. Twenty minutes into the match, a fire was started in the East stand where Jonathan and Carol were sitting. The fire was a result of the negligent catering service who managed the restaurants and bars in the East stand.

Extraits

[...] He is a secondary victim. He has to satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms (Alcock v Chief Constable South Yorkshire 1992). II- Potential liability to Martin Foreseeability of the psychiatric Illness First of all, Martin has to prove that his post traumatic stress was foreseeable that is to say that a person of ordinary fortitude might reasonably suffered in these circumstances. On the facts, he saw on TV the death of a lot of people. It is likely that a person of ordinary fortitude would have suffered from a psychiatric Illness after having seen such a tragedy. [...]

[...] According to the case Nettleship v Weston (1971), has the defendant's actions Fallen below the standard of care expected in all circumstances? On the facts, the fire results from the negligent catering service who managed the restaurants and bars. They would have taken care! We can say he breached his duty. Causation The question is: but for the catering services conduct, the victims' loss would not have occurred? Yes, they would be alive. The damage is not too remote; it is a consequence of the negligence. The causation is established. [...]

[...] Martin lost his best friend and his sister. He has to prove the close tie between them if he wants to be allowed recovery in respect of psychiatric Illness. The proximity is not established but it depends on the proof. The proximity in time and space The claimant has to prove a High degree of time and space to the accident. The claimant must witness the accident as it actually occurred or must come upon its immediate aftermath in a very short space of time. [...]

[...] Jonathan went with Martin's sister, Carol. A fire was started in the stadium and Jonathan and Carol died. Martin later suffered from post traumatic stress resulting from witnessing the tragedy. In psychiatric Illness cases, the claimant is suffering from medical conditions such as post traumatic stress, organic disorder or pathological grief disorder. In order to be compensated, the claimant must prove other things which depend on the type of claimant. Discuss any liability for the damage suffered by Martin Potential liability to Jonathan and Carol Duty Of Care According to the case Caparo and Dickman (1990), a claimant must prove the foreseeability of the damage, the Relationship of proximity and that is fair to impose a duty to get compensate. [...]

[...] Unfortunately Martin lost his ticket and was not allowed into the stadium. Martin therefore went to the local pub just 500 metres away from the stadium to watch the match on live TV and Jonathan went into the stadium to watch the match. Whilst in the stadium Jonathan bumped into Martin's sister, Carol who was also on her own. As Martin wasn't allowed into the stadium, Jonathan told Carol she could come sit next to him as Martin's seat would be free. [...]