Restriction of Liability Using the Floodgates Argument Essay

Restriction of Liability using the Floodgates Argument - Essay ExampleFor instance, master Atkin presented a neighbor principle. This principle defined that a barter of care should be addressed to neighbors, while the neighbors are the people that might suffer from our actions or errors.However, this commentary appeared to be too uncertain, and a number of chances where work of care was regarded as to be owed, increased rapidly. Later, Lord Bridge added three elements that should be observed before making statementThis 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 physiologic harm, psychological injury and economic loss.The situation with the laws in relation to psychological damage has significantly changed during prevail hundred years. At first, similar cases were spurned by the courts One of the earliest reported cases on sick 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 capable for imaginary claims. (2)According to the law, before appealing with a complaint for nervous shock, the victim should prove the adjacent items 1. That he or she experienced a definite psychological illness. Psychiatric injury can whence 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 wont be regarded as the case of psychological injury.2. It is una voidable to find out whether the injury is the result of defendants omissions or actions. In this case the negligence of the defendant essential 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 open that the defendant didnt 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