I’m stuck at Question 3 and I can’t get any further. How do I start on Question 4? Why are some of the points that I have to deliver?
I know, I have to work on my answer to Question 1. I would greatly appreciate it if you could offer some advice, or give me a guideline as to how to tackle this case. Thank you all so much.
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1982]
Questions:
1)Who are the claimants / respondents in the case?
2)Give a brief description of the facts of the case.
3)What were the legal issues before the House of Lords?
4)Mention the principles of Common Law used by Lord Wilberforce in his judgement.
Answers:
Question (1)
Mrs McLoughlin is claiming damages for psychiatric injury due to the negligence of the defendant. She was affected by the result of the accident which ensued due to the negligence of the respondent, O’Brian; Thomas McLoughlin the claimant’s husband, and 3 of her 4 children, George, Kathleen and Gillian were involved in a motor car collision. Michael one of her 4 children, was in another vehicle driven by a friend of the family’s; which was not involved in the accident.
Question (2)
The appellent’s husband, Thomas McLoughlin and 3 of her 4 children, George, Kathleen and Gillian, were involved in a motor car accident. Michael, one of her 4 children, was a passenger in another motor car driven by a friend of the family’s: this car was not involved in the accident.
As a result of the accident, the appellent’s husband, Thomas suffered injuries and shock; George suffered injuries to his head and face and cerebral concussion; Kathleen suffered concussion, bruising and shock. Gillian was so severely injured that she died almost immediately.
On the 19th October 1973, a friend came to the claimant’s (plaintiff’s) house to tell her of a serious accident involving her husband and three children, two hours after it had occurred. He drove her to the hospital where her son Michael said Gillian her daughter had died. She saw her husband and two other children seriously injured, all still covered in oil and mud. She suffered serious nervous shock as a result and sued the defendant who was responsible for the accident.
Question (3)
When confronted with novel situations, judges do make new laws. Their decisions establish precedents that affect future cases, Lord Wilberforce handled the case with judicial creativity.
In common law, damages cannot be awarded for grief and sorrow. In psychiatric injury claims, the House of Lords dismissed the public policy argument in the foreseeability and consequently the duty of care issue. Regarding policy and opening the floodgates, any abolition or relaxation of the special rules governing the recovery of damages for psychiatric harm would increase the class of persons who can recover damages in tort. The law in the area of psychiatric harm is thus becoming more complex and inconsistent. Defendants face difficulties of legal uncertainty since this area of law depends on policy considerations. Earlier decisions in English courts had allowed victims to recover damages for emotional injury. This case was unique at the time because the claimant suffered injuries away from the scene of the accident and hours after the accident occurred.
