Negligence, trauma and nervous shock

Richard Griffith, Senior Lecturer in Health Law at Swansea University, considers whether nurses who have suffered psychological trauma because of the negligent handling of the COVID-19 outbreak can claim compensation

12. Non-Physical Damage and Liability for Economic Loss

This chapter continues on from the previous chapter in discussing liability in negligence for physical damage and considers the potential liability that businesses and individuals may face when they provide advice in the nature of their business, when they cause economic losses not associated with physical damage, and where the claimant suffers a psychiatric injury or nervous shock due to the acts of the tortfeasor. Recently, there has been an increase in instances of imposing liability on employers for the stress and associated health problems suffered by their employees. In the absence of physical damage, restrictions are placed on the imposition of liability for pure economic loss, although such loss has been widened to include damages for negligent misstatements. Of crucial importance is that businesses are aware of the implications of providing information in the course of their professional activities that may cause an investor or client loss through negligence.

12. Economic Loss, the Liability of Professional Advisors, and Psychiatric Injury

This chapter continues on from the previous chapter in discussing liability in negligence for physical damage and considers the potential liability that businesses and individuals may face when they provide advice in the nature of their business, when they cause economic losses not associated with physical damage, and where the claimant suffers a psychiatric injury or nervous shock due to the acts of the tortfeasor. Recently, there has been an increase in instances of imposing liability on employers for the stress and associated health problems suffered by their employees. In the absence of physical damage, restrictions are placed on the imposition of liability for pure economic loss, although such loss has been widened to include damages for negligent misstatements. Of crucial importance is that businesses are aware of the implications of providing information in the course of their professional activities that may cause an investor or client loss through negligence.

How shocking: compensating secondary victims for psychiatric injury

SUMMARYWhen those whom the law terms ‘secondary victims’ – i.e. the passive and unwilling witnesses of injury, or of the threat of it, to others – seek compensation through the courts for the psychiatric injuries that they have suffered (traditionally but confusingly referred to as ‘nervous shock’ claims), there would in theory be the potential for a virtually limitless number of claims. For this reason, the courts have developed and apply a number of, to a large extent, arbitrary ‘control mechanisms’ as floodgates. This article describes these control mechanisms and other relevant law using recent illustrative cases and with particular reference to the assistance that the courts can expect of psychiatrists as to diagnosis and causation.LEARNING OBJECTIVES•Understand the law relating to the compensation of secondary victims for psychiatric injury•Appreciate the arbitrariness of the application of the law, as demonstrated in particular by recent cases of such claims by secondary victims•Understand the proper role of (and limits of) expert psychiatric evidence in secondary victim cases, and therefore how best to assist the courts in relation to themDECLARATION OF INTERESTNone.