This is an extract of our Duty Psychiatric Injury document, which we sell as part of our Torts Law Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of New South Wales students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Torts Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Class 3- Duty- Psychiatric injury: In class notes: Gender and torts
* Women as plaintiff. Women get compensated differently. The impact of the law is women must work twice as hard.
* Women do the majority of child care/education.
* Women socialised to be emotional.
* Mental harm linked to irrational. Therefore less valid. o The reasonable person is expected to be rational. o Mental harm is intangible so people thought it was tolerable suffering. There has been an expansion of who can recover in term of mental harm (consequential harm (a result of physical harm) v pure mental harm). Can get compensation for exposure to fear or harm or death, witnessing the harm or something you hear but don't see, aftermath. The law continuously expands to increase what can be compensated for.
* Expectation of reaction of 'normal' mother. E.g. Lindy Chamberlain case - put down because she was emotionless and not motherly. Mothers should react in one way.
* Public space= rational Private space= emotional
* Public relationship. E.g. A contract makes it easier to recognise harm than in other circumstances. Often advantages men over women. Self- relative - workmate (when you can get compensation in torts)
* Actual harm
* Exposure to fear/harm
* Around corner
* Aftermath The concept of psychiatric harm:
* Nervous shock was the old legal term used.
* Plaintiffs have recovered compensation for psychiatric harm where: o The psychiatric harm followed an injury to the self. E.g. Donaghue v Stevenson. o The psychiatric harm developed after exposure to a dangerous or fearful situation o It developed when the plaintiff feared for her relatives. E.g. In Rook v Stokes Bros a mother saw a driverless truck coming down a hill towards her children. o It developed when a relative was badly injured or killed and the plaintiff saw or heard the accident. o A rescuer or workmate developed psychiatric injury after witnessing a horrific scene.
* They may claim damages for physical injury and the consequential mental harm that followed.
* Sometimes they just have psychiatric harm and no injury.
* It must be a recognised psychiatric illness (CLA).
* To bring an action for nervous shock, the plaintiff must show that it was reasonably foreseeable that a person in their position would suffer psychiatric injury if the defendant carried out the act contemplated. It must be a form of harm that is compensable. It must be more than grief and sorrow and there must be evidence.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Torts Law Notes.