... reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour." Skysight's denied that they were legally responsible for Mrs. Taylor's psychiatric illness, therefore implying that her breakdown was not reasonably foreseeable. On the other hand Atkin emphasises the fact that one's neighbour can be described as someone who is directly affected by a certain act and the negligent party should have reasonable consideration for them. In this case one could argue that Mrs Taylor, like McLoughlin, had been directly affected by her step-son's death especially after identifying his dead body. Therefore skysight's should have considered the fact that she may have been affected by their negligence. On the contrary we see that in the Donoghue case the 'primary victim' was affected and Mrs Taylor only poses as a secondary victim therefore she may not be regarded as having "direct" injury. This is similar to the issue raised in the Hambrook v ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now