In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further.
Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. They would allow claims for pure psychiatric damage by mere bystanders: see (1997) 113 L.Q.R. That appears to be the course advocated by Mullany and Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damage: The Law of Nervous Shock, (1993). The second solution is to abolish all the special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm. But that would be contrary to precedent and, in any event, highly controversial. The case for such a course has been argued by Professor Stapleton. The first is to wipe out recovery in tort for pure psychiatric injury. My Lords, the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued
0 kommentar(er)
