Dan witnesses his best friend get seriously injured in a car crash. He is diagnosed with PTSD after seeing the aftermath of the scene, having been told about the accident by a passer-by.
Which of the following best explains whether Dan is likely to succeed in a negligence claim?

Question

Dan witnesses his best friend get seriously injured in a car crash. He is diagnosed with PTSD after seeing the aftermath of the scene, having been told about the accident by a passer-by.  
 Which of the following best explains whether Dan is likely to succeed in a negligence claim?

Answer

No, because psychiatric harm is not actionable unless accompanied by physical injury.

Answer

Yes, because psychiatric harm was foreseeable in someone of ordinary fortitude.

Answer

Yes, because he had a close tie of love and affection with the victim.

Answer

No, because Dan was not in physical danger and is not a primary victim.

Answer

Yes, because psychiatric harm is a form of physical injury.

Crowdly

Dan witnesses his best friend get seriously injured in a car crash. He is diagno...

Want instant access to all verified answers on moodle.kent.ac.uk?