Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.
Dooley v Cammell Laird  1 Lloyd's Rep 271
NEGLIGENCE – EMPLOYER DUTY OF CARE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – PRIMARY VICTIM
The claimant (C) was a crane operator working for the defendant (D). C was loading cargo from a quay onto a ship when the rope carrying the load snapped. The load fell into the hold of the ship, where C knew other workers were standing. Nobody was injured, though C suffered nervous shock as a result of what seeing what he believed to be the death or serious injury of some of his co-workers. The trauma of the event aggravated C’s pre-existing neurasthenia and, as a result, he could not return to work as a crane operator. C brought an action in negligence against D, seeking damages for psychiatric injury.
Whether D owed a duty of care to take reasonable steps in safeguarding their employees from the risk of nervous injury, as well as physical injury.
The application for a declaration was dismissed. Parental rights, as such, did not exist, except insofar as necessary to safeguard the best interests of a minor. In some circumstances, a minor would be able to give consent in their own right, without the knowledge or approval of their parents. The test proposed by Lord Scarman posits that a minor will be able to consent to treatment if they demonstrate “sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed” ( AC 112, 187[D]). The test is now often referred to as ‘Gillick competence’ and is an integral aspect of medical and family law.
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.