ABSTRACT
In Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, the Supreme Court held that a secondary victim cannot recover damages for psychiatric harm caused by witnessing a primary victim’s medical crisis. This note examines the ratio of the majority’s judgment, that the secondary victim must witness an accident (or its immediate aftermath) to successfully recover damages. It argues that the majority’s accident requirement is problematic for three reasons: it was not required by the case law; it is not as certain or intelligible as the majority suggest; and it treats clinical negligence as a subclass of personal injury. The note also suggests that the common law has, contrary to the majority’s analysis, started to develop a doctor’s duty of care to a patient’s family member. This would have provided the conceptual foundation upon which to treat the deaths as the relevant event in Paul. The note also considers the court’s helpful clarification that the accident need not be sufficiently horrifying, and that the secondary victim need not suffer a sudden shock, as well as the Supreme Court’s application of the scope of duty principle more broadly.
Matthew Leitch, Accidents, Crises, and Events in the Supreme Court: Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Modern Law Review. First published: 10 February 2025.
Leave a Reply