{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Gleeson cj gaudron and mchugh jj should run under

Info iconThis preview shows pages 6–9. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and McHugh JJ: Should run under tort of defamation not negligence. Reluctance to interfere with normal economic activity.
Background image of page 6

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Section 23: A person is not debarred from recovering damages merely because the injury complained of arose wholly or in part from mental or nervous harm . Section 67: Mental harm = psychological or psychiatric injury. (NB: Not ‘recognised’ psychological injury. PURE MENTAL HARM = Where plaintiff suffers only mental harm as a result of being endangered but not injured by D’s negligence; or as a result of seeing an accident occur to someone else. CONSEQUENTIAL HARM = Where the plaintiff suffers mental harm as a result of suffering some other kind of injury (injury = personal or mental). NB: MENTAL HARM CAUSED BY PROPERTY DAMAGE OF ECONOMIC LOSS = PURE; IF MENTAL HARM CAUSED BY PD OR EL, NEED TO DO DOC FOR THESE AND PURE MENTAL HARM. STATUTE Reasonable Foreseeability Section 72(1): D does not owe a DOC to the plaintiff unless the defendant foresaw or ought to have foreseen that a person of normal fortitude might in the circumstances suffer a recognised psychiatric illness if they did not take care. Section 72(2): Circumstances include a) Whether the mental harm suffered as a result of sudden shock b) Whether the plaintiff witnessed, at the scene, a person being killed, injured or put in danger. c) The nature of the relationship b/w the plaintiff and any person killed, injured or put in danger. 7 Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) (Infected potato chips) FACTS: Apande made potato chips and contracted farmer to grow the seed that they provided. They provided them with infected seeds preventing them to sell to WA who had a rule that processors and those in a 20km diameter of infected seeds could not sell there. RULE: Amongst others – Salient feature - courts do not want to interfere with ordinary economic practices. DUTY OF CARE (MENTAL HARM)
Background image of page 7
d) Whether or not there was a pre-existing relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Section 72(3) : Exception to circumstances: 73(2) does not effect the duty of care of the defendant to the plaintiff if the defendant knows, or ought to know that the plaintiff is a person of less than normal fortitude. Pure Mental Harm from Death/Injury/Endangerment to Another Section 73(1): In respect of those suffering pure mental harm as a result of another person being killed, injured or endangered by an act or omission by the defendant; Section 73(2): Cannot get damages unless a) plaintiff witnessed it at the scene b) plaintiff was in a close relationship with the victim; Section 73(3) can only get damages if the original victim is able to sue in negligence. *Only relates to pure mental harm NB: Don’t use this section with media. Consequential Mental Harm Section 74(1): Cannot claim for consequential mental harm unless: a) The defendant foresaw or ought to have foreseen that a person of normal fortitude might, in the circumstances of the case, suffer a recognised psychiatric illness if reasonable care were not taken, OR ; b) The defendant knew or ought to have known
Background image of page 8

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 9
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page6 / 45

Gleeson CJ Gaudron and McHugh JJ Should run under tort of...

This preview shows document pages 6 - 9. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online