This is a detailed Skeleton Argument on behalf of Sybil, the respondent, in response to the appeal lodged by Fawlty Fireworks Limited ("Appellant") against the judgment of Cleese J in the case of Sybil v FFL[1]. The matter at hand concerns Sybil's claim as a secondary victim arising from the accident suffered by Basil, even though they were in the early stages of divorce proceedings at the time of the accident at the FFL factory.

Procedural History

The case of Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne [2015] deals with the issue of psychiatric injury claims by secondary victims. Mr. Ronayne claimed psychiatric injury after witnessing his wife in a severely deteriorated health condition due to medical negligence. Mrs. Ronayne underwent a hysterectomy, and three days after being discharged, her health rapidly deteriorated due to peritonitis and septicemia, resulting from a ruptured colon. Mr. Ronayne witnessed his wife in a critical condition on two separate occasions. The trial judge favored Mr. Ronayne, stating he had suffered a psychiatric disorder. However, the defendant's hospital appealed. The appeal focused on whether the events Mr. Ronayne witnessed were horrifying enough to cause a nervous shock and whether the shock caused his psychiatric illness. The appellate court held that the events were not a single horrifying event but a series of events over a period of time. The court emphasized that there was no "sudden appreciation of an event" but rather a gradual realization of his wife's deteriorating condition. The court concluded that what Mr. Ronayne witnessed was not horrifying by objective standards and did not lead to a sudden violent agitation of the mind. The Ronayne case highlights the importance of the immediacy of the event in nervous shock claims. The appellate court's decision emphasized the difference between a shocking event and a series of distressing events over time. This distinction could be relevant to the case of Sybil v FFL, where there was a two-and-a-half-hour delay between the accident and Sybil witnessing Basil's condition. The court might consider whether this delay diminishes the immediacy and shock of the event, similar to how the events in the Ronayne case were viewed as a series of distressing events rather than a single shocking event.

Background

2. The central issue before this court pertains to the criteria for establishing a duty of care owed by FFL to Sybil as a secondary victim and whether the immediate aftermath requirement was met. The "Immediate Aftermath" definition of an accident should be given a wide, flexible interpretation considering each instance's unique circumstances.
4. The Appellant contends that the two and a half hours between the accident and Sybil seeing Basil, who had been treated and controlled, precludes her from claiming as a secondary victim. I respectfully submit the following comprehensive arguments, supported by legal authority, to defend the judgment.
6. Ground of Appeal

The Delay Perception of the Immediate Aftermath.

Legal Principles and Application

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire[2] revolved around the Hillsborough Stadium disaster, where 95 fans of Liverpool FC died due to police negligence in managing crowd control. Several claimants, relatives of the victims, claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered from witnessing the disaster either directly or indirectly (e.g., on live television). The HOLs[3] established criteria for secondary victims to claim psychiatric harm: (a) a close bond of love and affection for the primary victim, (b) one's own sense perception of the event, (c) proximity to the event or its immediate consequences, and (d) psychological damageashocking enough event that must be caused by. The legal framework for secondary victims in England and Wales was outlined for the first time. The HOLs ruled that for a claimant to recover as a secondary victim, they needed to have suffered a "shock" due to the accident, and the shock needed to have been induced by the "immediate aftermath" of the event. This was one of the requirements for recovering compensation. Having arrived at the scene, Sybil witnessed the explosion's immediate aftermath, as evidenced by the presence of emergency services and the state of Basil. Basil was still in shock and confusion, covered in burns, having a tube inserted into his throat, and being treated by paramedics. Sybil saw Basil in this state and was traumatized by what she saw, as evidenced by the fact that she broke down and started weeping and shaking uncontrollably. As a direct result of the accident, it is abundantly obvious from the medical data that she was affected by a diagnosable psychiatric condition.

4.Ground of Appeal

The Proximate of Time and Place

Legal Principles and Application

In McLoughlin v O'Brian,[4] the claimant's husband and children were involved in a road traffic accident caused by the defendant's negligence. The claimant was informed of the accident two hours later and, upon arriving at the hospital, discovered the extent of her family's injuries and the death of her younger daughter. The traumatic experience resulted in her suffering a psychiatric illness. The case revolved around whether the claimant could recover damages for the "immediate aftermath" experienced due to the accident, even though she was not at the scene. The HOLs, in deciding in favor of the claimant, emphasized that recovery for psychiatric damage was not limited to those directly involved in the event. The duty of care extended to those who encountered the "immediate aftermath" of an incident, even if they did not witness the event itself, thus allowing for recovery. The claimant was not present at the accident scene but encountered its immediate aftermath; it was held that witnessing the consequences shortly after the event can be considered proximate in time and place to the event itself.Sybil arrived at the factory two and a half hours after the accident, comparable to the two-hour gap in the McLoughlin. Upon arrival, she was confronted with the horrifying sight of her husband, Basil, in a severely injured state. This traumatic experience, akin to the accident's immediate aftermath, resulted in her suffering from PTSD.

From the above write-up, please do the reflection on the following:

a) Concrete Experience

b) Reflective Observation

c) Abstract Conceptualisation

d) Active Experimentation

[1] Fawlty Fireworks Limited

[2] [1992] 1 AC 310

[3] House of Lords

[4] [1983] 1 AC 410

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer a Concrete Experience The case of Sybil v FFL presents a scenario where Sybil as a secondary victim claims damages for psychiatric harm arising ... View the full answer