The tort of negligence relating to claims for psychiatric injury.
Until relatively recently, the tort of negligence relating to claims for psychiatric injury was very uncertain. However, in recent times, this area of the law has become slightly more certain with the laying down of various guidelines and criteria governing whether an individual can recover damages as a result of witnessing an event which causes them some form of psychiatric injury. As a result, there are various issues connected with whether a/various claimant(s) can recover damages (for psychiatric injury) as a result of a defendants' negligence and these will be looked at in depth. However, before the compensation claims, of the various individuals involved, can be discussed, it maybe necessary to define precisely what is meant by (negligently inflicted) psychiatric injury. Psychiatric Injury is defined as: 'a sudden assault on the nervous system' or 'a sudden appreciation ... of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind'1 These definitions suggest that the psychiatric injury must be shock induced i.e. a traumatic event which has an impact (there and then) on the mind. When assessing a person's claim for compensation for psychiatric injury it is important to make a number of distinctions. First, is the person claiming a primary or secondary victim and secondly, the type of shock caused - is it long or short term. The first person seeking
The tort of negligence.
Tort coursework In the tort of negligence three things need to be proved in order for an action to succeed, the first being that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the second being that the defendant breaks that duty of care within the standard of care required by law and thirdly this breach of duty of care results in damage to the plaintiff. This damage must be recognised by the law.1 In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson2 it was said that " you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question."3 Rogers believes that this "statement must be the most influential in any decision on any subject in the history of the common law in England."4 Rogers believe is generally very true as the main concept of negligence comes from that case and that statement. Following this case came the case of Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. V Home Office [1969]5 where Lord Denning stated "at bottom a matter of public policy which we, as judges, must resolve. This talk of 'duty' or 'no duty' is simply a way of limiting the range of
"A duty of care arises not merely when damage is reasonably foreseeable, but when it is just and reasonable to impose liability" Critically discuss.
INTRODUCTION As seen occurring for the past decade, the doctrine of duty of care occupies principles that are disproportionate to the importance in tort cases which comes to court. Therefore, where decisions have been appealed and overruled this would affect the whole structure of development of negligence law. Every potential new duty of care allowed has the effect of increasing the numbers of tort cases being brought in the future. This proves that tort plays an important role in society. As a result of such circumstances, the courts are faced with considerable problems having to decide between doing justice in individual cases or prevent a vast increase in the number of future cases, which are policy reasons1. Therefore, to discover whether duty of care arises when it is reasonably foreseeable, or whether other policy reason would be taken into account to impose such duty, it is necessary to view the development of the law with regards to landmark cases as tort law is largely base on common law rather than statute base. The aim of the discussion would be towards how the courts create requirements and implications to impose duty of care through the evolving progression of principle ORIGIN OF NEGLIGENCE Negligence is a universal concept in the legal system and is largely concern with compensating people who suffered damage as a result of others' carelessness. But as a
To what extent do principle and policy affect law?
"Duty is the primary control device which allows the courts to keep liability for negligence within what they regard as acceptable limits and the controversies which have centred around the criteria for the existence of a duty reflect differences of opinion as to the proper ambit of liability for negligence". [Winfield & Jolowicz, Tort, 17th edn, 134] Discuss, with reference to 3 cases which you have studied. The first element of negligence under Tort Law is the existence of a legal duty of care. This is, essentially, the relationship between the defendant and the claimant by which there is an obligation upon the defendant to take proper care to avoid causing injury to the claimant. The leading case in this area of law is undoubtedly Donoghue v Stevenson1[1]. In this situation there was no binding contract between the two parties, however liability was found due the fact that product sold caused material physical damage to the claimant due to the negligence of the defendant. Here, the already established manufacturer, consumer relationship applies. Though, Lord Aitkin then formulated the "neighbour principle" to limit the scope of future claims on the grounds of what the courts regard as acceptable. Only when this principle could be applied, could there be a duty of care. However, various legal journals suggest that Donoghue v Stevenson was fabricated slightly by the
How do the cases discussed in unit 3 contribute to our understanding of the aims of tort law?
How do the cases discussed in unit 3 contribute to our understanding of the aims of tort law? There are various disparate aims of tort law and they are exercised in different cases and for different reasons. One of the aims of tort law is known as loss spreading and this basically seeks to distribute loss so that liability falls on the stronger party. In the case of Nettleship v Weston, the claimant N was held not to have voluntarily contributed to the harm done because he had checked out the issue of insurance. The learner driver was also held liable because she owes a duty of care same as any experienced driver so she could not argue that she was trying her "incompetent best". In this case, Lord Denning also held that morally, the learner drive is not at fault but legally, she is held liable because she has insurance and it is therefore fair that the burden should fall on her. This embodies a new aim of tort law which is "on whom should the risk fall?" This case helps to add to our understanding, different aims of tort law. C. Harlow has described tort as having various disparate aims. Under the heading of loss spreading, "Atiyah suggests that the principal function of tort is 'social insurance' ". This can be observed in the above case and it is basically a situation whereby the courts seek to place liability on big companies for instance or persons who are better able to
Law For Business.
Law For Business 15/02/01 Outcome 2 Chris Lundie Assessment - Part 2 The Maxwell's could raise a claim against the council for being vicariously liable for the employee's actions (Jonathan Wright's). They could claim under Professional Negligence stating that they both suffered a pecuniary loss (pure economic loss - structural repairs estimated £14,000 + extra travelling to work at 150 miles a day) as a direct result of Jonathan's negligent misstatement. In order to do this Stephen and Lesley would need to prove the following: - Show that there was a duty of care owed to them by the council. Regarding negligence there is only one standard of care and that is to take reasonable care in the circumstances. They must then prove that there was a breach of the duty of care owed to them, and through the young surveyor's negligence they suffered a financial loss, and that the council is vicariously liable for the loss. An employer is liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of an employee provided the act is done within the scope of employment. In this case Jonathan prepared a valuation report as instructed, for the council and this would therefore be regarded as being within the scope of employment. Referring to the case Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co (1957) AC 555 then if Stephen & Lesley's case were to be successful in claiming from the council for loss
The law allows people to claim compensation in the civil courts if they themselves have been injured, their reputation damaged or property harmed.
Having bought herself a cheap windsurfer, Ursula decided to teach herself to windsurf on a lake near her home. After several hours' practice, she began to tire and decided to have one last attempt at crossing the lake. She failed to notice Vera, who was fishing from a boat on the lake. Unfortunately, Ursula crashed into the boat, which capsized, and Vera lost her expensive fishing equipment in the lake. The law allows people to claim compensation in the civil courts if they themselves have been injured, their reputation damaged or property harmed. It is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal liability; both elements are necessary under the criminal common law to sustain a guilty conviction. It is not necessary in every instance to prove malice within the civil courts but, within the law of torts, the courts are more concerned with the effects of injurious conduct than with the motives than inspired it. Negligent torts are the most common type of torts. Negligent torts are not deliberate, but arise when someone fails to act as a reasonable person to someone he/she owes a duty to, resulting in an injury. Negligence can be summed up as one's failure to exercise reasonable care. More specifically, a negligent act occurs when there is failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or
Explain the three elements of the tort of negligence and advise Mumbridge plc whether it is likely to be liable to compensate James who claims the company has been negligent.
Module Title: Introduction to Business Law Module Code: LWB1008C Module Leader: Roger Thomas ____________________________________________________________ Assignment Mumbridge plc is a pharmaceutical company manufacturing a range of pharmaceutical products including Zaba, a pill, which is sold to University lecturers to boost their energy levels. The Zaba is sold exclusively via a chain of chemists shops Tilalot Ltd. Tilalot is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mumbridge plc. James a lecturer has purchased the Zaba from the Cambridge branch of Tilalot Ltd and used it according to the instructions on the packet for 12 months. James likes to drink al least five cups of coffee a day. He recently suffered a nervous breakdown and is not expected to make a full recovery. Newly published research has shown that the Zaba can cause depression if taken by someone drinking more than four cups of coffee a day. ) Explain the three elements of the tort of negligence and advise Mumbridge plc whether it is likely to be liable to compensate James who claims the company has been negligent. A tort can be defined as a civil wrong. This means that it is a wrong behaviour that causes harm to a person, his property, reputation and trade. It is based on the breach of duty which is imposed by the law and therefore not like the obligations voluntarily accepted to a contract. The law seeks to provide
Personal Injury.
Personal Injury There are 3 forms of trespass to the person - - Assault - Battery - False imprisonment Trespass to the person is an intentional conduct by the defendant. The rules relates to the defendant's actions, not necessarily harm that results from his actions. Trespass to the person is actionable per se. Stanley v Powell [1891] The defendant had inflicted injury neither intentionally no negligently when he fired a shot, which ricocheted off a tree and hit the plaintiff. It was held that trespass to the person is a fault-based tort. Fowler v Lanning [1959] Neither intention nor negligence was alleged by the plaintiff who was injured by a shot from the defendant's gun. It was held that since the claim lacked an allegation of intention or negligence, it was struck out as no cause of action. In trespass to the person, the burden of proving negligence lies in the plaintiff. Letang v Cooper [1965] The defendat negligently drove his car over the legs of the plaintiff who was sun bathing in the hotel car park. The action in negligence was time barred. The plaintiff relied in an effort to prevent her action from being statute barred. It was held that actions for personal injuries should no longer be divided into trespass (where harm is direct) and negligence (where harm is indirect). Where the conduct was negligent, the action lay in negligence. Wilson v
Causality in Lynch Vs. Fisher. Did the original negligence of the driver of the parked truck set in motion a chain of circumstances following consecutively one upon the other which led to plaintiffs injury?
Scott Schauer 7/28/10 Philosophy of Law Causality in Lynch v. Fisher Causation presents a very difficult task in some tort claims. Our central concern is to find a balance between the responsibility and fairness of each claim, which sometimes gets obscured by the difficulty in proving causation. Clearly, the case of Lynch v. Fisher represents the Law of Torts, and correspondingly etches out the subtle differences each action has on the outcome of all claims of causality. In the case of Lynch v. Fisher a truck driver, who is an employee of the defendants, Harry Fisher and Roger Wheless, parked a pulpwood truck on the right-hand side of a main highway. The truck driver then proceeded to leave the area where he had negligently parked the truck. Shortly after, a passenger car, driven by the defendant, Robert Gunter, along with his wife in the passenger seat, violently collided with the parked truck and sent them into disarray. Robert Gunter was also held negligent for operating his car at an unlawful speed and not paying attention to the road. A nearby good Samaritan and also plaintiff of the case, William Lynch, heard the collision and rushed to the scene to save Mr. Gunter and his wife. While pulling Mrs. Gunter out of the car which had just caught fire, he found a hand gun near the floor mat and proceeded to hand it to Mr. Gunter while attending to his wife. In
