5. Special duty problems: psychiatric harm

2021 ◽  
pp. 102-137
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Psychiatric Illness ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter begins by explaining the meaning of psychiatric harm. It then discusses the general exclusionary rule; the distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ victims; and other circumstances where the law recognises victims of psychiatric harms as having a claim in negligence (rescuers, involuntary participants, communicators of shocking news, self-harm by the defendant and ‘assumption of responsibility’ cases). Though initially psychiatric harm was recoverable only if accompanied by physical injury, it is now clear that the claimant can recover for pure psychiatric harm so long as it is a recognised psychiatric illness. It is not, therefore, possible to recover in the tort of negligence for mere grief, anxiety or distress.

5. Special duty problems: psychiatric harm

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 102-136
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Psychiatric Illness ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter begins by explaining the meaning of psychiatric harm. It then discusses the general exclusionary rule; the distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ victims; and other circumstances where the law recognises victims of psychiatric harms as having a claim in negligence (rescuers, involuntary participants, communicators of shocking news, self-harm by the defendant and ‘assumption of responsibility’ cases). Though initially psychiatric harm was recoverable only if accompanied by physical injury, it is now clear that the claimant can recover for pure psychiatric harm so long as it is a recognised psychiatric illness. It is not, therefore, possible to recover in the tort of negligence for mere grief, anxiety or distress.

5. Special duty problems: psychiatric harm

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter begins by explaining the meaning of psychiatric harm. It then discusses the general exclusionary rule; the distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ victims; and other circumstances where the law recognises victims of psychiatric harms as having a claim in negligence (rescuers, involuntary participants, communicators of shocking news, self-harm by the defendant and ‘assumption of responsibility’ cases).

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

2021 ◽  
pp. 138-187
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. It remains the case that public bodies will be liable where the negligent exercise of their powers makes a situation worse than it already was. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire [2005]; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

Nervous Shock: Is it Available in The Islamic Law of Tort?

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Basir bin Mohamad
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Retardation ◽  
Psychiatric Illness ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Long Period ◽  
Nervous Shock ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Divine Law

AbstractAs we know from the discussions amongst Muslim jurists in their writings, they normally highlight the law of qisas and diya as well as ta‘zir for dealing with cases of death and injury resulting from physical tort such as beating, punching, whipping, kicking, slashing, stabbing, snapping, etc. But a question may arise as to death or injury resulting from non‐physical or immaterial torts or, in current legal terminology, nervous shock. Could the case be settled by Islamic law? Nervous shock can also cause mental illness, mental retardation, morbid depression, mental shock, or, in modern terms, psychiatric damage or psychiatric illness, and in that way can also cause someone to suffer a physical injury or death. To resolve this, we have to refer to kinds of law as a yardstick to measure the tortuous liability. It surely falls under human law, even though it is combined with divine law, but human law prevails here. The Muslim jurists have exemplified this law by relating it to qisas and diya in the case of punishment for murder, injury, and wounding. As such, the cases of nervous shock are certainly included in the discussion of qisas and diya in general. In the first part of this paper the discussion on nervous shock focuses on the English law of tort and is then followed by the exploration in Islamic law of tort. As we know, the rule of nervous shock has been practiced and applied intensively in English law over a long period of time, and at the same time the discussion clearly shows that the rule of nervous shock appears in Islam and is not alien to the Islamic law of tort.

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 137-185
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. It remains the case that public bodies will be liable where the negligent exercise of their powers makes a situation worse than it already was. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire [2005]; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

scholarly journals Coercive Measures and Stigmatization in the Psychiatric Medical Care

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3sup1) ◽  
pp. 137-145
Author(s):  
Petronela Nechita ◽  
◽  
Liliana Luca ◽  
Alina-Ioana Voinea ◽  
Codrina Moraru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Disorders ◽  
Psychiatric Hospital ◽  
Treatment Compliance ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Involuntary Admission ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
The Law

The involuntary commitment of psychiatric patients has been done for almost a decade under the Law 487/2002, the law of mental health and protection for people with psychiatric disorders. Frequent involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations have led to stigma attitudes and discriminatory acts towards patients with mental disorders. The coercive medical measures are applied in the psychiatric institutions of the mental health protection agencies. Coercion gives rise to serious ethical debates in the psychiatric assistance. The individual who was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital anticipates social rejection becoming defensive, withdraws socially, experiences a complex internal conflict. The goal for this study is to illustrate aspects linked to coercive measures, mechanical restraint at involuntary admission of patients with mental illnesses in the psychiatric medical assistance. Material and method: This study is a retrospective one, and the data was taken from the charts with involuntary admissions during the period of October 2002 to July 2012. The studied lot was comprised of 202 patients admitted involuntarily in a psychiatric hospital according to the Law 487/2002, the law of mental health and protection for people with psychiatric disorders. Results: Of the 25.7% patients admitted involuntarily, that required coercive measures during admission, 58% were contained for symptoms like self-harm. The mechanical contention measures were especially necessary in the acute cases with symptoms as self-harm and/or harm of others, but also in situations with hallucinatory-delirium symptoms. The ratio of male sex subjects was significantly higher in the subject lot that needed coercive measures during hospitalization, of those admitted involuntarily (86.5% vs. 72%) (p = 0.036). Conclusions: Involuntary admission and mandatory treatment remains in psychiatry a medical, legal and ethical problem. The required measures can lead mainly to clinical benefits, implying a paternal attitude from the psychiatry specialists by defying the patients’ autonomy. Treatment compliance is directly proportional to the overall level of functioning and inversely proportional to the level of self-stigmatization.

5. Psychiatric injury

2019 ◽  
pp. 48-59
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
The South ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on psychiatric injury. Psychiatric injury which is not derived from physical injury is a type of damage which is not always recoverable in negligence. It is an aspect of duty of care. The range of allowable actions has evolved through developments of control mechanisms in the common law, often policy based. The legal distinction between the primary and secondary victim is explored, as are more atypical situations. The four key cases are McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983), Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991), Page v Smith (1995), and White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police (1999).

4. Special duty problems: psychiatric harm

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Physical Impact ◽  
Not At Risk ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter discusses the ‘special duty issue’ that arises when a person has suffered psychiatric harm as a result of the defendant’s negligence. This issue has an interesting history, for it was thought at first that a claimant could only succeed if he or she was within the range of physical impact. In other words, only the ‘primary’ victim could sue. Liability was later extended to secondary victims; that is, where the claimant was not at risk of physical injury, but saw or heard the accident which caused the shock with his or her own unaided senses.

The psychiatric assessment of the medical patient

2020 ◽  
pp. 6447-6453
Author(s):  
Jane Walker ◽  
Roger Smyth ◽  
Michael Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Psychiatric Illness ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Medical Patient ◽  
Psychiatric Assessment ◽  
Medically Ill ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Need For Treatment ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Harm To Others ◽  
Medically Ill Patients

Medically ill patients often have psychiatric illness. Physicians can and should detect and diagnose these illnesses during their standard medical assessment. All that is required is knowledge of key questions to ask patients, awareness of the clinical signs that may be observed, and an appreciation of the value of additional information from relatives, other clinicians, and the medical record. The aims are to detect and diagnose psychiatric disorders; assess the risk of self-harm or harm to others; establish the need for treatment or referral for a psychiatric opinion; provide the basis for clear and effective communication with a psychiatrist; and to communicate to the patient that you are interested in all aspects of their suffering and thereby establish a clinically effective relationship with them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document