Secondary Victim Claims - The Supreme Court Latest - Webinar

Introduction

Claims for victims suffering psychiatric harm after witnessing horrifying events have always been interesting and tricky to run, to say the least. In the area of clinical negligence, quite often the horrifying event happens many weeks or months after the negligence. In those circumstances, can it be said that the secondary victim has the necessary proximity?

The Supreme Court has now handed down judgment in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton, Polmear v Royal Cornwall & Purchase v Ahmed which considers this issue in detail.

This webinar, which focuses in particular on the recent caselaw, will be of interest to both personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners, providing a refresher in the key legal concepts, as they relate to secondary victims but also looking at the development of the law all the way to Paul and Polmear.

While the law is of course interesting, the purpose of the webinar will be to help practitioners better run these cases and will be full of practical tips.

What You Will Learn

This webinar will cover the following:

• Overview of the SC decision in Paul v Wolverhampton and Polmear v Royal Cornwall
• The legal difference between primary and secondary victims
• The Alcock principles
• What constitutes the necessary proximity to an event?
• What happens when the event happens at a different point in time than the negligence?
• What did the Court of Appeal say in Taylor v Novo and why was it important?
• Practical tips for running psychiatric injury claims