Restriction of Liability Using the Floodgates Argument Essay

Restriction of Liability Using the Floodgates Argument - Essay Example For instance, Lord Atkin presented a neighbor principle. This principle defined that a duty of care should be addressed to neighbors, while the neighbors are the people that might suffer from our actions or errors. However, this description appeared to be too uncertain, and a number of cases where duty of care was regarded as to be owed, increased rapidly. Later, Lord Bridge added three elements that should be observed before making statement: This addition helped much in judges' experience, but the content of these three elements depends upon the kind of injury that was caused to the claimant. There are 3 kinds of injury: physical harm, psychological injury and economic loss. The situation with the laws in relation to psychological damage has significantly changed during last hundred years. At first, similar cases were rejected by the courts: "One of the earliest reported cases on "nervous shock", as it was then called, was that of Victorian Railway Commissioners v. Coultas. 3. As a result of the negligence of a level-crossing gatekeeper, a train narrowly missed hitting the plaintiff. This incident caused the plaintiff to suffer shock. The Privy Council rejected the claim stating, inter alia, that to allow recovery would result in " a wide field [being] opened for imaginary claims." (2) According to the law, before appealing with a complaint for nervous shock, the victim should prove the following items: 1. That he or she experienced a definite psychological illness. "Psychiatric injury can therefore include: clinical depression, personality changes and post-traumatic stress disorder (an illness in which shocking events cause symptoms such as sleeping difficulty, tension, horrifying flashbacks and severe depression)."(6) A definite diagnosis should prove the statement. In case the person is just disappointed or upset, the case won't be regarded as the case of psychological injury. 2. It is necessary to find out whether the injury is the result of defendant's omissions or actions. In this case the negligence of the defendant must be evident. It is also important to observe if it was possible to foresee the damage. If the above mentioned item is proved and it is established that the defendant didn't execute his duty of care towards the victim, then the usual laws that are related to the breach of duty can be implemented. 3. It is necessary to define whether the claimant is a primary or secondary victim As far as the cases of psychological injury are concerned, there are some questions that are to be solved. The