• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month


Extracts from this document...


Evaluating Pshciatric harm Psychiatric harm is a recognised psychiatric illness, resulting from an incident and it must have long term effects. Mere grief, fright and sorrow are insuffiecient. Historically the law did not extend to claims brought purely in respect of psychiatric harm. This was due to it being difficult to diagnose, and may lead to victims faking the illness and bring ficticious claims. There was also the fear of opening the floodgates - if too many people could fake the illness, then there would be no end of claims in the tort. In white v cc of south Yorkshire, Lord Steyn commented that the law on psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are hard to justify. The mechanisms developed by the judiciary to prevent the number of potential claims in psychiatric harm result in injustice. The first problem that lies with it is the inconsistent development. The law on psychiatric harm has developed drastically over the past 100 years, with the knowledge of illnesses like it uncommon at the turn of the 20th century, and at the end of the 20th century they are commonly known to exist. ...read more.


Why do brothers and sisters have to prove close ties of love and affection, when then spend about one fifth of their lives living together, so how much closer do they have to be to prove the close ties of love and affection, when proving it between parents and children who also live together isn't actually necessary? Even lord Alcock commented that close ties may be stronger in an engaged couple than between husbands and wifes. By having the close ties requirement, this lead to extra burden being placed upon those who have to prove it exists between themselves and the primary victim. This makes the court hearing more traumatic for the claimant. It is questionable whether subjecting the personal lives and relationships of claimants to detailed scruting can be justified, at a time when even if their claims are true they are emotionally weak and vunerable. There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the scope of the immediate aftermath test. In Mcloughlin v O brian, it was decided that the aftermath of the accident extends to the hospital to which the injured person was taken and persisted for so long as he remained in the state produced by the accident up to receiving post traumatic treatment. ...read more.


had close ties of love and affection with the primary victim, they will have no claim as they will be classed as a secondary victim. However, this contradicts the original catorgory of rescuers, which saw them as a separate catorgory as in Chadwick, and if they had risked there own life for the safety of others they would receive compensation if they suffered psychiatric harm as a result. The law commission recommends that the requirement that psychiatric illness be induced by shock should not longer apply, the requirement of closeness to the accident in time and space or immediate aftermath in respect of those whose suffer psychiatric injury as a result of harm being caused to those who the claimant has close ties need no longer apply, and the catorgories of people that are deemed to have close ties should be extended to the victims spouse, parent, child, brother or sister. However, what must be taken in to consideration is that to prevent the floodgates being opened to far, that the changes should not be so drastic that the amount of claims or the duty of care becomes so wide that the floodgates will been too big like when the Anns test was being used in the 1980's. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    If a tort is proved then the claimant could be awarded a remedy to compensate for their injuries, to put them in the same position as they were previously i.e. damages for loss, personal injury, pain and suffering. An injured sports person could claim compensatory damages for personal injuries, for loss of income and medical or other expenses.


    the vicinity of the danger; and the risk is one against which in all the circumstances of the case he may reasonably be expected to offer that person some protection. The duty is to take such care 'as is reasonable in all the circumstances' to see that the person to

  1. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    Torts and breaches of contract A tort involves breach of a duty which is fixed by the law, while breach of contract is a breach of a duty not to trespass on other people's land, whether we like it or not, and breach of that duty is a tort.

  2. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    The actus reus is that the victim (Jenny) is put in fear of the application of unlawful force. The mens rea required for this crime is either intention to put the victim in fear or Cunningham recklessness as to the putting of the victim in fear.

  1. negligence in tort

    such that he came under an obligation to use care towards him. This relationship is sometimes referred to as 'proximity'. In cases of personal injury, the necessary relationship is established if the defendant ought to have foreseen damage to the claimant.


    and hence legal causation can undoubtedly be established. 'Malice aforethought' encompasses two particular types of mens rea - intention to kill and intention to cause grievous bodily harm. Either of these states of mind will be sufficient mens rea for murder.

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    It was held that, although she was reckless, she did not intend to kill. In Moloney [1985], the House held that an intent to cause serious bodily harm is sufficient mens rea for murder,[5] while Lord Bridge appeared to suggest that the law should regard "morally certain" consequences as intended.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Maintenance of safe access and egress to the workplace 3. Safe use, handling and storage of dangerous substances 4. Adequate training of staff to ensure health and safety 5. Adequate welfare provisions for staff at work. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 The Management of Health and

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work