Psychiatric Harm (w7)
How and why the type of harm matters in tort
Two types of harm that defendants are generally responsible for:
Physical harm
Property harm
Two types of harm that defendants are not always responsible for:
Economic harm
Psychiatric harm
The underlying concerns
Harm can spread very quickly, widely and foreseeably
Accumulated liability can destroy D financially
C (or 3rd parties) may be better placed to contain danger, insure
against it.
Our aim: a principled division of responsibility between D and C.
Think back to Spartan Steel v Martin. Lord Denning argued in that case that the
factory could have used back up energy to complete the melt and not lose
profits even though Martin was negligent.
Psychiatric harm: setting up the problem
Why is it different to physical harm? Why can D not ALWAYS be
responsible for causing this type of harm?
Psychiatric harm = recognised psychiatric illness (PTSD, depression etc)
Grief, anxiety, disappointment, heartbreak, humiliation etc. will not
do. These tend not to be medically recognised too well. They do not
involve a disorder, you just have disappointment or a broken heart.
Increasing medical knowledge overtime → better grasp of:
Incidence = what constitutes a psychiatric illness/disorder
Causation = which circumstances cause a psychiatric
illness/disorder
Say D caused C psychiatric harm. Is D liable for it? No difficulty if D:
Was reckless about causing C such harm, Wilkinson v Downton
[1897] 2 QB 57 (NB: Wilkinson v Downton is an intentional tort; not
in your syllabus)
A guy wanted to play a practical joke to a woman and told her, that
her husband was in an accident and is severely injured and may die
soon. This wasn’t a funny joke and she suffered a bad stroke and
, sued him after realising it was a joke. THIS IS NOT A TORT OF
NEGLIGENCE; it is to do with causation of psychiatric harm and
recklessness.
Had duty to protect C’s mental health Walker v N’land CC [1995] 1
All ER 737
Social worker with very heavy workload and is also emotional, so
had a nervous breakdown at a point due to this. They said to the
council, I am over it now but I will go back to work even though
these type of cases are demanding and too much for me. The
council didn’t do anything and Walker suffered a nervous
breakdown and sued the council. The court HELD that the mere
fact that Walker suffered a collapse the first time didn’t know the
council was in breach of duty since some jobs are demanding. But
by the second time Walker had requested the council to tone the
workload and case seriousness down and they did nothing.
Could foresee risk of physical harm to C, even if no such harm
occurred, Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155;
D runs into C’s car and the C is startled and experiences shock. C
already had a mental illness. C’s psychiatric condition is worsened
even though no phsycial harm happened.
YOU CAN RECOVER PSYCHIATRIC HARM EVEN IF THERES NO
PHSYCIAL HARM DONE TO YOU.
The fear in this case was reasonable.
IF D’S NEGLIGENCE BUT C IN FEAR OF THEIR SAFETY OF
HEALTH BUT THE RISK OF HARM IS 0 THEN YOU WONT GET
COMPENSATION: see also Rothwell v Chemical Co [2007] 4 AllER
1047.
Workers exposed to asbestos, workers in coal or factories. Can
cause cancer or mesothelioma. However asbestos fibres will not
affect health. The workers just had a false belief that they would
by physically harmed. Medical science refuted the claims and made
them reasonable but clearly false.
Q1: Why are these cases easy?
Q2: Is D liable for C’s psychiatric harm in harder cases?
How and why the type of harm matters in tort
Two types of harm that defendants are generally responsible for:
Physical harm
Property harm
Two types of harm that defendants are not always responsible for:
Economic harm
Psychiatric harm
The underlying concerns
Harm can spread very quickly, widely and foreseeably
Accumulated liability can destroy D financially
C (or 3rd parties) may be better placed to contain danger, insure
against it.
Our aim: a principled division of responsibility between D and C.
Think back to Spartan Steel v Martin. Lord Denning argued in that case that the
factory could have used back up energy to complete the melt and not lose
profits even though Martin was negligent.
Psychiatric harm: setting up the problem
Why is it different to physical harm? Why can D not ALWAYS be
responsible for causing this type of harm?
Psychiatric harm = recognised psychiatric illness (PTSD, depression etc)
Grief, anxiety, disappointment, heartbreak, humiliation etc. will not
do. These tend not to be medically recognised too well. They do not
involve a disorder, you just have disappointment or a broken heart.
Increasing medical knowledge overtime → better grasp of:
Incidence = what constitutes a psychiatric illness/disorder
Causation = which circumstances cause a psychiatric
illness/disorder
Say D caused C psychiatric harm. Is D liable for it? No difficulty if D:
Was reckless about causing C such harm, Wilkinson v Downton
[1897] 2 QB 57 (NB: Wilkinson v Downton is an intentional tort; not
in your syllabus)
A guy wanted to play a practical joke to a woman and told her, that
her husband was in an accident and is severely injured and may die
soon. This wasn’t a funny joke and she suffered a bad stroke and
, sued him after realising it was a joke. THIS IS NOT A TORT OF
NEGLIGENCE; it is to do with causation of psychiatric harm and
recklessness.
Had duty to protect C’s mental health Walker v N’land CC [1995] 1
All ER 737
Social worker with very heavy workload and is also emotional, so
had a nervous breakdown at a point due to this. They said to the
council, I am over it now but I will go back to work even though
these type of cases are demanding and too much for me. The
council didn’t do anything and Walker suffered a nervous
breakdown and sued the council. The court HELD that the mere
fact that Walker suffered a collapse the first time didn’t know the
council was in breach of duty since some jobs are demanding. But
by the second time Walker had requested the council to tone the
workload and case seriousness down and they did nothing.
Could foresee risk of physical harm to C, even if no such harm
occurred, Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155;
D runs into C’s car and the C is startled and experiences shock. C
already had a mental illness. C’s psychiatric condition is worsened
even though no phsycial harm happened.
YOU CAN RECOVER PSYCHIATRIC HARM EVEN IF THERES NO
PHSYCIAL HARM DONE TO YOU.
The fear in this case was reasonable.
IF D’S NEGLIGENCE BUT C IN FEAR OF THEIR SAFETY OF
HEALTH BUT THE RISK OF HARM IS 0 THEN YOU WONT GET
COMPENSATION: see also Rothwell v Chemical Co [2007] 4 AllER
1047.
Workers exposed to asbestos, workers in coal or factories. Can
cause cancer or mesothelioma. However asbestos fibres will not
affect health. The workers just had a false belief that they would
by physically harmed. Medical science refuted the claims and made
them reasonable but clearly false.
Q1: Why are these cases easy?
Q2: Is D liable for C’s psychiatric harm in harder cases?
