Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • LLB102Torts NovelDuties PsychiatricInjury ProblemSolving

    Uploaded by

    lo se
    6 views1 page
    This document outlines the factors to consider in negligence claims for psychiatric injury. It identifies two types of psychiatric injury - pure psychiatric injury and consequential psychiatric injury from grief. It also notes that courts use a multifactorial approach established in Sullivan v Moody to determine if a duty of care exists. The factors examined are whether the injury was medically recognized, reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, the relationship between the parties, control/vulnerability of the plaintiff, and limiting liability. The document provides cases as examples when analyzing each factor to conclude whether a duty of care is owed.

    Original Description:

    nov

    Original Title

    LLB102Torts_NovelDuties_PsychiatricInjury_ProblemSolving (2)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document outlines the factors to consider in negligence claims for psychiatric injury. It identifies two types of psychiatric injury - pure psychiatric injury and consequential psychiatric injury from grief. It also notes that courts use a multifactorial approach established in Sullivan v Moody to determine if a duty of care exists. The factors examined are whether the injury was medically recognized, reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, the relationship between the parties, control/vulnerability of the plaintiff, and limiting liability. The document provides cases as examples when analyzing each factor to conclude whether a duty of care is owed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views1 page

    LLB102Torts NovelDuties PsychiatricInjury ProblemSolving

    Uploaded by

    lo se
    This document outlines the factors to consider in negligence claims for psychiatric injury. It identifies two types of psychiatric injury - pure psychiatric injury and consequential psychiatric injury from grief. It also notes that courts use a multifactorial approach established in Sullivan v Moody to determine if a duty of care exists. The factors examined are whether the injury was medically recognized, reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, the relationship between the parties, control/vulnerability of the plaintiff, and limiting liability. The document provides cases as examples when analyzing each factor to conclude whether a duty of care is owed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    DUTIES OF CARE: NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY

    Identify and classify the loss / type of harm suffered (and explain why on the facts)

    Pure PI (Psychiatric Injury)


    Consequential PI Mere Grief etc
    • Tame v NSW; Annetts v Stations
    Pty Ltd Identify as a Novel Duty (with Authority)

    Identify AND Explain the Multifactorial Approach


    • Sullivan v Moody

    Established 1. Medically Recognised / Recognisable Psychiatric Injury


    Duty of Care? • Tame v NSW; Annetts v Stations Pty Ltd
    or
    Reasonable
    2. Reasonable Foreseeability
    Foreseeability of Harm? Was it reasonably foreseeable that the Pl (as an individual or as a member of a class) could suffer
    per Donoghue v Stevenson psychiatric injury due to the Def’s negligence?: Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring; Koehler v Cerebos
    ALSO RELEVANT POST TAME / ANNETTS IS:
    • Normal Fortitude: Tame
    • Direct Perception: Gifford; Annetts
    • Sudden Shock: Annetts

    3. Other Factors
    • Relationships Between the Parties (may also be relevant to reasonable foreseeability)
    o Plaintiff and Victim: Gifford
    o Plaintiff and Defendant: Annetts
    • Control and Vulnerability: Gifford; Annetts
    • Coherency: Annetts; Gifford; Koehler; Tame; Sullivan
    • Indeterminate Liability: Sullivan

    Duty of Care No Duty of Care Conclusion? Is there a Duty of Care Owed


    Balance arguments for AND against
    LLB102 Torts, QUT Law School

    You might also like