Negligence: Economic Loss and Psychiatric Harm

Mental distress, anxiety, and nightmares that arise as a direct result of a physical injury.

Psychiatric harm that occurs without any physical injury to the person experiencing it.

A medically recognized mental health condition that can be caused by pure psychiatric harm. Examples include post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression.

Physical conditions that arise suddenly due to a shocking event. Examples include heart attacks and miscarriages.

The requirement for a duty of care to exist in cases of pure psychiatric harm. It means that only certain types of psychiatric harm will be recognized by the law as compensable.

The type of psychiatric harm that must be present in order for a claimant to receive compensation for pure psychiatric harm. It must be a medically recognized illness or a shock-induced physical condition.

The legal principle that establishes the responsibility of a person or entity to prevent harm to others. In pure psychiatric harm cases, a duty of care must be established for compensation to be awarded.

The process of determining the extent of liability for pure psychiatric harm, taking into account the specific circumstances and the nature of the harm experienced.

A legal obligation to avoid causing harm, typically in cases of negligence.

A legal rule limiting potential claims for pure psychiatric harm, establishing a close enough connection between the defendant's negligence and claimant's distress.

Mental issues arising as a result of physical injuries.

A person experiencing mental distress caused by an event, such as a traffic accident.

A person whose actions or negligence cause harm to another.

Mental distress caused by witnessing a traumatic event.

The legal standard that requires a sufficiently close relationship between the claimant and defendant to establish a duty of care for pure psychiatric harm.

The potential for liability, in terms of the number of claimants who could potentially claim compensation, becoming unmanageably vast.

An unexpected and shocking event that can lead to a claim for pure psychiatric harm. Often involves witnessing a traumatic incident or distressing event.

When a defendant's negligence causes pure psychiatric harm, there is usually no duty of care owed towards the claimant unless specific circumstances exist.

A legally recognized mental health condition like PTSD, anxiety, or depression caused by an event resulting in pure psychiatric harm.

A type of mental harm that happens without any physical injury. It's about the emotional impact of an event.

The law limits who can claim for pure psychiatric harm; it has to be a recognized illness or a physical reaction caused by shock.

The courts try to limit the number of people who can claim for pure psychiatric harm to avoid unfair burdens on those responsible.

Types of mental illnesses like PTSD, anxiety, and depression, caused by a traumatic event, but without direct physical injury.

Physical reactions like heart attacks or miscarriages that are triggered by a sudden shocking event. This is also part of pure psychiatric harm.

This describes the legal responsibility someone has to avoid causing harm to others, including their mental wellbeing.

Mental distress caused by witnessing a traumatic event. This is a type of pure psychiatric harm.

The legal closeness between the person who caused the harm and the person claiming for pure psychiatric harm.

The defendant's actions must have been reasonably foreseeable to cause psychiatric harm to the claimant. This means the defendant should have anticipated the potential for emotional damage.

The link between the defendant's negligence and the claimant's psychiatric injury must be sufficiently close. This includes the relationship between the claimant and the victim, their proximity to the event, and whether they witnessed it directly.

The claimant must have experienced a clinically identifiable psychiatric illness, such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, or phobia, caused by the defendant's negligence.

The psychiatric harm must be caused by a sudden realization of the event, not a gradual process. This means the triggering event must be immediate and impactful.

The person who directly suffers a physical injury from the defendant's negligence and later experiences psychiatric harm. They do not need to prove foreseeability.

The person who suffers psychiatric harm by witnessing or hearing about the defendant's negligent act causing harm to someone else, typically a close relative. They must prove foreseeability and proximity.

Proving a direct causal link between the defendant's negligence and the claimant's psychiatric injury can be challenging and often requires expert medical evidence.

This legal principle aims to prevent unreasonable or overly broad liability, especially in cases where many claimants might emerge. Courts are cautious about claims that could lead to an overwhelming number of claims.

Pure economic harm occurs when someone suffers a financial loss due to another's negligence without any physical or emotional harm.

An established duty of care is essential for a claim to be successful. The court needs to be able to identify a specific obligation the defendant had to the claimant regarding the financial loss suffered.

In pure economic harm cases, the defendant's negligence must have been a direct and foreseeable cause of the claimant's financial loss. If the loss was not reasonably foreseeable, the claim will likely fail.

A close connection between the defendant's action and the claimant's financial loss is required. This means the defendant's negligence must be directly linked to the claimant's economic loss.

Pre-existing agreements or contracts between the parties can influence whether a claim for pure economic loss is successful. These contracts can act as safeguards, limiting the claim's scope.

Public policy considerations play a significant role in determining whether to allow a claim for pure economic loss. Courts weigh potential risks of excessive liability and social consequences.

Courts carefully judge the potential for a duty of care to exist, considering the specific circumstances of the case and considering public policy factors. Each case is decided on its merits.