Dealing With Post Traumatic Stress Clients Law Essay

In giving full advice to Mr Patel for station traumatic emphasis upset which he suffered as a consequence of an incident affecting his work co-worker. Analysis was made as to how he suffered PTSD utilizing unfastened and closed inquiries to garner the relevant facts. This advice will further explicate Mr Patel ‘s claim against his employers for compensation for the medical recognized hurt he has sustained. The responsibility of attention will be explained along with instance jurisprudence and Statues to back up the claim against the 3rd party insurance and Employers.

The first issue explained to the client was the responsibility of confidentiality under regulation 4 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority guidelines. A house or employee or fee earner must maintain the personal businesss of the client i.e. Mr Patel in this instance and former clients confidential except where revelation is required or permitted by jurisprudence or by Mr Patel.[ 1 ]The responsibility of confidentiality ever supersedes the responsibility to unwrap and where sensible belief that serious physical or mental hurt will be caused to any individual if the information is disclosed to a client.

The facts: Mr Patel has suffered from PTSD during working for a company called Hamilton Ecology Ltd who industry and put in air current turbines. Mr Patel was Installing air current turbines in Cumbria where he had to remain over in porter cabins to transport out his responsibilities. On the 16th January he was ordered by the Site director travel inside his cabin due to hapless conditions conditions. Mr. Patel all of a sudden witnessed through his cabin window a air current turbine coming towards him and out of the blue hit one of his work co-workers, Joe Hart. The turbine fell on him killing him immediately. By seeing this incident and the decease of his friend he has suffered from PTSD. Mr Patel has been off work since and the company has been paying him statutory ill wage to day of the month. He has been diagnosed by a adviser with PTSD.

PTSD is described as a reaction to direct exposure to a injury, but it can besides be the effect of witnessing or even larning about a terrorizing event such as in Mr Patel ‘s instance. The injury is normally capable of bring forthing bodily injury and it typically involves catastrophe or force etc. This type of emphasis upset brings about immediate and intense fright, hurt and weakness. These events are sudden and no notice is evident when they are about to go on.[ 2 ]

The jurisprudence on psychiatric hurt was foremost recognised in the instance of Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas.[ 3 ]Case jurisprudence has progressed in leting compensation where claimants are moderately put in fright of their safety. In Dulieu v White a pregnant barmaid, suffered psychiatric daze followed by unwellness and the premature birth of her kid when a cart and runaway Equus caballuss came towards her and crashed into the saloon where she was working. She perceived this through a window there was no impact doing physical hurt ; but she feared for her ain safety. She was successful in claiming compensation by manner of amendss. This is similar to what happened to Mr Patel.

In Hambrook v Stoke a female parent who feared for the safety of her kids was successful in her claim against the negligent suspect.[ 4 ]It can be suggested that recovery of amendss for nervous daze should be limited to such instances.[ 5 ]

It can be argued that Mr Patel could be a secondary or primary victim. In Page V Smith[ 6 ]the House of Lords decided that in instances of psychiatric hurt it is indispensable to distinguish between primary and secondary victims.[ 7 ]This nomenclature was introduced by Lord Oliver in Alcock V Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.[ 8 ]The claimant in Page was involved in a minor route incident but he did non endure any physical hurt. He claimed amendss for his pre-accident status of chronic weariness syndrome which had been aggravated by the nervous daze. Court of Appeal decided that ‘nervous daze ‘ was non foreseeable and hence, harmonizing to Bourhill v Young,[ 9 ]there should be no recovery of amendss by the claimant. However, the House of Lords, by a 3:2 bulk, allowed the claimant ‘s entreaty, they decided that, in the instance of a primary victims foreseeability of physical hurt is sufficient to set up liability for ‘nervous daze ‘ and where a claimant has suffered psychiatric daze because he had an ‘eggshell personality[ 10 ]‘ it is irrelevant that physical hurt did non happen provided it was foreseeable. The regulation that claimants must hold customary emotionlessnesss or sensible fortitude does non use to primary victims.

Lord Wilberforce in McLoughlin V O’Brian adopted three elements which should be present in any claim. First the category of individuals who could claim, back the propinquity of such individual to the incident in clip and infinite, and third the agencies by which the daze was caused.[ 11 ]This was to put restrictions on claims as nervous daze is capable of impacting a broad scope of persons. This attack was adopted in the instance of Alcock V Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.[ 12 ]It illustrates that a claimant could merely retrieve for psychiatric daze if his relationship to the primary victim was sufficiently near that it was moderately foreseeable that he might endure nervous daze. The propinquity to the incident or its immediate wake was sufficiently near in both infinite and clip. Mr Patel suffered daze through hearing and seeing the accident on its immediate wake. It is clearly arguable that Mr Patel fits the standard laid down in Alcock.

For Mr Patel to be able to peruse a claim for the hurt sustained he will necessitate to turn out that a responsibility of attention is owed, there was a breach of that responsibility and causing. The responsibility of attention issue is already recognised by jurisprudence as employer/ employee. It was held in Caparo V Dickman that there needs to be a sensible foreseeability of injury, the propinquity of the relationship between the claimant and the suspect. It besides has to be just, merely and sensible to enforce the responsibility on the employer.[ 13 ]It can be suggested that Hamilton Ecology Ltd owe a responsibility of attention to Mr Patel as deficiency of proving the safety of the turbines would do harm or hurt to the employees. The propinquity demand would be satisfied and foresight of a sensible individual would do.[ 14 ]Would a sensible individual behave in a manner which Patel did, harmonizing to the instance of Blaue you take your victim as you find him.[ 15 ]

There has been a breach of responsibility as illustrated in the instance of Ward v Tesco Stores. The trial is that the accident must be the sort which does non usually go on in the absence of carelessness.[ 16 ]The following issue is causation, but for the employers breach would the hurt have happened, this is besides satisfied if the relevant safety steps were made so Patel would non hold been injured.[ 17 ]It can be suggested that Patel was working in a class of his employment for Hamilton Ecology hence vicarious liability can be established. The cause of the accident was under the suspect ‘s control there was no account of the cause of the accident.

Hamilton Ecology has fallen below the standard responsibility of attention owed to Mr. Patel. In Hiles v South Gloucestershire NHS Primary Care Trust the tribunal held that injury suffered could hold been prevented by the exercising of sensible attention.[ 18 ]Employers are responsible for the safety and wellness of their work force while they are in employment. Their duties for employees safety is satisfied by due attention and accomplishment. But it is non fulfilled by deputation to employees, even though selected with due attention and accomplishment.[ 19 ]

There should hold been sufficient hazard appraisal by the company and at that place should hold been precautions in topographic point to pull off the hazard of injury.[ 20 ]A hazard appraisal is merely a careful scrutiny of work premises, as to any cause of injury or harm to persons. The employer owes a responsibility to employees to choose competent workers and to give appropriate supervising and instructions.[ 21 ]However, this responsibility is discharged if the employer takes sensible steps to see the premises are safe.[ 22 ]

The Employers ‘ Liability ( Compulsory Insurance ) Act 1969 ensures that employers must hold the minimal degree of insurance screen against any such claims.[ 23 ]The Employers Liability ( Defective Equipment ) Act 1969 makes an employer apt when an employee is injured in the class of his employment by faulty machinery.[ 24 ]

In reding Mr Patel keeping his employers Hamilton Ecology vicariously apt for the hurt he has sustained. Mr Patel can be assured that we will be working on a no win no fee footing this means that if we win we will recover our costs from the 3rd party insurance and if we lose so Mr. Patel will non be apt for any legal cost incurred by our house as we will see against any losingss occurred. Every attempt will be made to reimburse any amendss and out of pocket disbursals occurred by Mr Patel through the psychiatric hurt sustained at Hamilton Ecology LTD.

Wordss 1503