Threshold for Actionable Damage in Tort Law

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

What is one of the advantages that trespassory torts like battery and assault have over the Current Wilkinson Tort?

C is able to recover for unforeseeable damage

What should not matter under the Revised Wilkinson Tort if D intended to cause serious emotional distress to C?

D could not reasonably foresee all the consequences

Under the statutory tort in the PHA 1997, does the kind of damage suffered by C need to be reasonably foreseeable?

No

What is the threshold for liability under the Revised Wilkinson Tort for intentional torts?

Intent to cause serious emotional distress Signup and view all the answers

What feature of the Revised Wilkinson Tort brings it into line with trespassory torts like battery and assault?

Doing away with reasonable foreseeability of damage Signup and view all the answers

For what type of damage does the statutory tort in the PHA 1997 not require reasonable foreseeability?

Damage suffered by C as a result of D’s harassment Signup and view all the answers

What is the typical threshold for actionable damage in cases of psychiatric injury?

The typical threshold for actionable damage is a recognized medical condition such as clinical depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, which is assessed in accordance with standard diagnostic classifications. Signup and view all the answers

How does the proposed Revised Wilkinson Tort differ from the typical threshold for actionable damage?

Under the Revised Wilkinson Tort, the minimum threshold injury required would be 'serious emotional distress', which could fall short of a recognised psychiatric injury. Signup and view all the answers

How would proof of a psychiatric injury be treated under the Revised Wilkinson Tort?

Under the Revised Wilkinson Tort, proof of a psychiatric injury would go to quantum, but not to threshold liability. Signup and view all the answers

What did Lord Hoffmann remark in the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd regarding compensation for mere distress?

Lord Hoffmann remarked that he saw no reason why a tort of intention should be subject to the rule which excludes compensation for mere distress, inconvenience or discomfort in actions based on negligence. Signup and view all the answers

What type of support has the idea of a lesser form of mental harm being actionable under the Current Wilkinson Tort received?

The idea has received academic and law reform support, and some English appellate judges have foreshadowed that a lesser form of mental harm ought to be actionable under the Current Wilkinson Tort. Signup and view all the answers

How does the proposed Revised Wilkinson Tort differ from the Current Wilkinson Tort in terms of the threshold for liability?

Under the Revised Wilkinson Tort, 'serious emotional distress' would be the minimum threshold injury required, whereas the Current Wilkinson Tort requires a recognized psychiatric injury. Signup and view all the answers

According to the passage, what is the key distinction made by the courts between negligence and intent in causing personal injury?

The courts have stated that negligence and intent are 'very different fault elements' and there are 'principled reasons for differentiating between the ... possible extent of liability for causing personal injury in either case. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the fact that lesser forms of harm, such as emotional distress, are permitted for many common law torts at the 'intentional' or 'malicious' end of the spectrum?

The passage suggests that this indicates the Current Wilkinson Tort sits 'uncomfortably' with these other common law torts, as it has required proof of a 'grievous non-physical reaction' that may fall short of a recognised psychiatric illness. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the fact that claims for anxiety or distress, unaccompanied by any physical injury, are sufficient for various statutory torts involving wrongful intentional conduct?

This further highlights the inconsistency between the Current Wilkinson Tort and other areas of the law, where compensation for emotional distress alone is permitted in cases of intentional wrongdoing. Signup and view all the answers

How does the passage suggest the 'stricter the intent element is construed' impacts the argument for differentiating liability between negligence and intent?

The passage states that 'the stricter the intent element is construed, the stronger this argument' for differentiating liability between negligence and intent. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the passage's discussion of the need to prove a 'grievous non-physical reaction' that may fall short of a recognised psychiatric illness for the tort of misfeasance in public office?

This further highlights how the Current Wilkinson Tort has set a higher threshold for the type of harm required compared to other areas of the law dealing with intentional wrongdoing. Signup and view all the answers

What is the central issue raised by the passage regarding the Current Wilkinson Tort and its relationship to other areas of the law?

The central issue raised is that the Current Wilkinson Tort sits 'uncomfortably' with other common law torts and statutory torts involving intentional wrongdoing, as it has set a higher bar in terms of the type of harm required to be compensable. Signup and view all the answers