Remoteness and intensity of damage suffered
Tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. The objectives of tort are deterrence that is to correct wrong to prevent future tortuous liability and compensation. This paper attempts to analyse the principle of negligence, to examine one of the most fundamental objectives of tort; compensation or restitution for those who have suffered personal injury, both physical and mental integrity, along with financial or economic loss. The core issue here concerns estimating the remoteness and intensity of damage suffered by the claimants. Similarly to make recommendation on the nature of remedies that can be sought hereof, furthermore the ostensible outcome or settlement claims. It also sets out to consider the approach or exceptions of the law to special type of defendants that is public authorities or rescuers. This requires a precise apprehension of the contemporary maxim of negligence, issues relating to claims for nervous shock and psychiatric injury and the defences to liability.
Negligence as a tort is a breach of legal duty to take care which results in damage to the claimant In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)  Alderson concludes “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guide upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do" 
The modern methodology or test to determine whether negligence exists, involves various concepts; a party must prove that a legal duty of care was owed from the defendant, the defendant was in breach of that duty, and the concept of foreseeability, or reasonableness, close proximity of relationship between claimant and defendant and consequently, that the cause of injury and the remoteness of damage or loss suffered resulting from the breach.
The duty of care notion, generally offers a structure for a multiplicity of circumstances through which accountability may occur. This concept also was established in the very influential case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932  ) the obiter dicta in this case was that a person owes a duty of care when they can reasonably foresee damage to their neighbour; ‘The neighbour principle’ as per Lord Atkin was initiated. However in Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978)  a two-stage test was established to extenuate and reformulate the principle in Donoghue. Lord Wilberforce emphasized a relationship of proximity likely to cause damage, as well as to acknowledge and envisage any considerations, which ought to negate and limit the scope  . This test expanded negligence liability with a restriction to policy issues. However the House of Lords overruled this principle In Murhpy v Brentwood District Council (1990) 
Lord Keith in Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1987)  refers to: the two stage test formulated by Lord Wilberforce as an objective for determining the duty of care in negligence and elevated to a degree of importance than its merits and greater than perhaps its author intended …".  He referred to sufficiency of proximity as an analogue for foreseeability as well as referring to the entire concept of the relationship of ‘neighbour principle’ as described in Donogue v Stevenson (1932) and assumed similar circumstances apply in Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964)  ; Home Office v Dorset yacht (1970)  .
In Home Office v Dorset Yacht (1970) Lord Reid argued, that the Home office had a vicarious liability to the Borstal officers, he held that they were under a duty of care as regards to the persons under their care who might suffer damage as a result of their carelessness  ‘He differentiated between a calculated act of policy in letting the boys out on parole and sheer negligence of keeping them in’. Still Lord Denning dismissed it as to simple way of limiting the range of liability of negligence.
The most contemporary and present test is the three-stage test commissioned by Lord Bridge in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman (1990)  it gave a fundamental paradigm to establish whether a duty of care exists. The House of Lords decided that reasonable foreseeability of damage to the claimant the (neighbour principle); proximity between the defendant and claimant; fairness, just and reasonable to impose a duty; and policy considerations should be the standard test fort duty of care.
The persons who suffered injury or loss hereof; Mike, Uncle Lewis and his consequential death, auntie Maria and Soraya who suffered personal injury of nervous shock. The claimants here are Mike Jigger, his aunt Maria and the cousin Soraya being dependants of the deceased and the defendants being the Police. Mike has aright to seek compensation for financial loss of earnings due to the fact that he will never be able to perform as a singer in public again and this is his job, along with future possible loss of income if his condition exacerbates or worsens and as a dependant to his uncle Lewis who was ‘like a father’ to him. He may also make a personal injury claim for both physical and mental illness, considering he is likely to be paralysed from the waist down and medical experts are uncertain whether his condition will deteriorate in the future. Similarly he can make a claim for compensation for psychiatric injury, that is the state of shock he suffered as a consequence of witnessing the traumatic scenario of his Uncle Lewis struggling for his life and entire episode of the accident.
And you can also talk about the mayor of London who organised the event, what they will be liable
For Mike to gain compensation for his person injury claim, there are various factors that have to be taken into contemplation. The police have affirmed they owed a duty of care to Mike and his uncle Lewis for their physical injuries, having established that there was a breach of duty by the Police, Mike has to justify that the damage he suffered was reasonably foreseeable by the police. The proximity between him and the police must also be examined and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. This is apparent to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990); Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd (1994); Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) Mike’s claim for his physical person injuries will succeed as he satisfies all the requirements of the law. However it may be complex to ascertain the expanse of their liability with the argument that the police had a duty to act positively like the case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970)
One of the essential elements in a claim in negligence is the concept of causation; the claimant must prove that the damage or injury suffered was caused by the defendant breach of his duty. There are two facts to this concept; ‘factual’ and legal causation. Factual causation is usually worked out in contingencies the focal point here is traditional, and scrutiny is directed to the basic facts of what transpired or to ascertain if the defendants’ acts caused the injury. If the harm was not caused by the defendant’s breach of duty then they are not liable for injury. Distinctively the legal aspect of causation is a rather complex to determine due to the fact that there are policy considerations.
The claim to psychiatric injury or nervous shock, Mike must prove that the shock or injury suffered was an immediate aftermath of the incident. He must also meet the legal principle set out in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992)  ;Bourhill v Young (1943)  It must be reasonably foreseeable that the a person as Mike of normal fortitutide in the position of the claimant suffered illness due to his close ties of love and affection with the victim; and there must be
The Police fall under a special category of defendants, public bodies, In Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)  the police Mike holds a right to seek for remedies in a diverse range of causes or suits. consideration of cause rather than effect the law on nervous shock is complex and inconsistent. . Defendants face difficulties of legal uncertainty since this area of law depends on policy considerations. The law mainly directs attention to causes rather than effect. Mike would have to prove that the injuries he suffered was caused by the negligence of the police.
Remedies or damages for personal injury claims are categorised as pecuniary and non- pecuniary losses. Mike can claim in both. into
TALK ABOUT REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE AS WELL
There is a distinction of the categories or class of the claimants. Mike having been present at the scene and a participant in the event, is recognised as a primary victim. Mike is a primary victim because he was present at the scene of the incident. However Auntie Maria and cousin Soraya are secondary victims due to the fact that that they were not present at the scene of the incident but
Suffered nervous shock as a result of televised communication or broadcast
The geographical proximity of the claimant to the incident, and the causation or means by which the nervous shock or injuries were suffered.
To satisfy the proximity requirement, the claimant must be present at the scene of the accident or its immediate effect, however the claim must be on basis of the immediate aftermath of the accident. Auntie Maria and Soraya can for the claim must to the fact that there is insufficient proximity; they were not present at between accidents. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1991)  a distinction was made between primary and secondary victims.
The remoteness of the damage caused must taken into account as well. Mike was paralysed as a result of the Police negligence. Suffered substantial loss and damage to his career, as he could not be able to perform in public again. He can seek compensation for pecuniary loss.
Auntie Maria and Soraya who are relatives and dependants of the bereaved (uncle Lewis) can claim for compensation for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976