This document discusses potential psychiatric injury claims against Inai Berhad by four parties - Adrian, Ann, Trisha, and Malik - resulting from a motor accident caused by Inai Berhad's negligence in maintaining electrical circuits. Adrian, who was directly involved in the accident, can likely establish a duty of care claim by showing proximity and foreseeability of injury. Ann may also have a valid claim if she can demonstrate proximity through satisfying familial, temporal, and spatial tests and providing medical certification of her injury. Trisha's claim is less likely to succeed due to an inability to establish spatial proximity. Malik's claim as a rescuer depends on showing he risked his life to rescue Adrian and providing medical certification of injury

1. ANSWER
The problem given did not clearly identify parties which suffers phyciatric injury therefore i have to
assume that all parties mentioned did suffers from phyciatric injury as a result of the accident.
The issue here is whether Inai Berhad owes a duty of care towards Adrian,Ann,Trisha and Malik and are
responsible for their psyciatric injury as a result of their negligence in maintaining the curcuit resulting in
Adrian motor accident.
To determine methods of application of law in cases involving phyciatric injury first is to determine the
type of victims the claimants are.
Reffering to the case of Page v Smith,they are either primary or secondary. Primary if the claimant
involved directly in the accident and suffers injury from it or secondary if the claimant suffers injury from
the accident while not directly involved in the accident.
Among the parties Adrian is the only person directly involved in the accident making him the only
primary victim in this problem and the rest are merely secondary.
For Adrian to prove proximity and foreseeability under ther neighbourhood principle (Donoghue v
Stevenson) ; he is of a primary victim (directly involved in the track accident) and suffers phyciatric injury
. This in turn shows proximity with the act of the not maintaining the track by Inai Berhad to him being
so injured.
Since he (Adrian) is proximate to the tortfeasor act (not maintaining the track) therefore it is reasonable
for them to foresee that their negligence would result in causing him to suffer injury and in this case
injury of phyciatric nature (also a foreseeable injury of damage)

2. Furthermore in order to be sucessfull in his claim Adrian must be able to provide the court with a
medical certificate to acknowledge his psyciatric injury.
In conclusion Adrian is likely to win his claim towards Inai Berhad as they should foresee him being
injured phyciatrically since he is proximate to them. This establishes duty and they had subsequently
breach their duty and causes damage to Adrian.
There are however few defences available that could be raised by Inai Berhad to avoid liability such as
volenti non fit injuria,consent,act of nature and all reasonable due care has been carried out.
Next, in relation to the other parties of secondary victims nature, namely Ann and Trisha certain
additional conditions have to be satisfied in order for them to sucessfully claim against Inai Berhad. This
would then be fair,just and reasonable for them to anticipate other persons to be also injured by their
negligent act.
The proximity and foreseeability relationship between them and Inai Berhad can be met with by
fullfilling proximity test of familial,temporal and spatial test.The test can be found in Alcock v Cheif
Constable of South Yorkshire and McLaoughlin v O Brian.
Familial test is to determine the proximity of relationship between the primary and secondary victims.
Only close relationship would result to a reasonable foreseeability of injury towards secondary victims
by the wrongdoer (Inai Berhad). Claimant must prove love and affections exist between them and the
victims to the court.
Temporal test is to establish proximity of time between the time of the accident and the time the
phycistric injury claimed. Secondary victims can be at the scene of accident when it occurs or
immediately after it (2 hours). If the time accident occurs and time where the injury meterialised is
proximate only then will it be reasonable for wrongdoer to foresee an injury is likely.
Finally, spatial test is to determine the proximity of space between the accident and the injury suffered
by the claimant. Space means not only distance but the actual effect of the event towards the claimant
must be close in its effects. Claimant must perseive the accident with their own unaided senses, able to

3. clearly identify the primary victims would establish proximity of space. Only then the wrongdoer can
reasonably foresee injury.
Lastly, the claimant must be able to provide mefical certification of their illnes of a psyciatric nature.
In applying to Ann's situation, she can astablish familial proximity if she can prove love and affection.
Here she can argue that having the child of Adrians' is one prove of love and affection between her and
Adrian,furthermore if she can prove that Adrian is a carring father and a loving partner though they
were not legally married can strenghten her argument in satifying this test.
In her temporal test if she can prove that the time she receive the news of the accident was not more
than the legal 2 hours to the time she saw the actual condition of Adrian at the hospital, she can satisfy
proximity of time.
Ann could satify spatial test here as she saw the effect of accident where the conditions of Adrian was as
if the same as the accident had just occured at the circuit because the condition of Adrian was no
different from the moment of accident where his body was full of blood and was disfigured state at the
hospital.
She must provide the court with her medical certificate of mebtal injury.
Therefore i could conclude for Ann she could likely prove proximity of her injury to the injury of the
victim close to her and Inai Berhad should reasonably foresee her suffering psyciatric injury as a result,
making her as their neighbour owing her a duty if care not to injure her.
As for Trisha, she does have the proximity of relationship with Adrian being his mother but that alone
might not be enough as she must prove love and affection prevailing between her and her son.
Assuming she can therefore she can satify this test. The proximity of time and space is where it could be
difficult for her to satisfy as she only hear the details of the accident through someone else showing that
there is a gap of space between her and the accident, it is agreed that she was at the scene as it was a
live telecast meaning there is proximity of time but the fact that she was told of the accident (described
to her) and not able to see the actual condition of Adrian being blind would not satify proximity of
space.

4. Therefore i would say that Trisha might not have a chance in proving proximity and due to that unlikely
making Inai Berhad to reasonable foresee her to be so affected mentally by their negligence act of not
maintaining the tract, even if she can prove a medical certificate that she indeed suffers from mental
injury related to the incident. Inai Berhad could avoid liability against Trisha.
As for Malik although he is a secondary victims, his test is not similar to those of Ann and Trisha as he is
considered as a rescuer. In order to encourage heroic act by resuers, these victims only have to provide
a medical certificate of their mental injury and prove to the court that during the rescue work they
(secondary victims) had actually risk their life in their rescue affords. This can be seen in the case of
White v Cheif Constable of South Yourkshire.
Applying to Malik situation, the main question is whether he has risked his life in the rescueing of Adrian
from the accident. If the condition was dangerous that is life threatening then he would have a good
ground in his claim but would not if it was otherwise. He must also provide a medical certificate in
addition to the above.
Therefore in advising Inai Berhad over their liability towards Malik depends on Malik's ability to support
evidence of risk and medical certificate.