Research Paper on:
United Kingdom Law and Nervous Shock or Psychological Harm Damage

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
find a satisfactory solution. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1AC 310 at 417 states that when it comes to the law regarding psychiatric harm that it is  not "wholly logical". However, in seeking to find if the law has moved forward since this case where it was recognised there was need for change we need to consider  what the situation was. Otherwise we cannot ascertain if more recent actions and decisions become more logical or more suited to compensate for such an incident. This type of  case comes under the law of tort, and to proceed we need to ensure that it is recognised for any case to be brought there are several factors that needed  to be satisfied. These were that the defendant had a position where they owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that the damage was a result of a breach of  that duty of care, and that the harm suffered or damage originating from that breach (John, 1996). The traditional stance of the courts has been to show a great deal  of reluctance in considering the duty of care when it results in mental rather than the more measurable physical injuries (John, 1996). There were many logical, if unfair, reasons for  this stance. A claim for nervous suffering is less easily scrutinised, bring about a higher potential for fraud, there are problems in ascertaining a monetary value for this type of  injury, and the way in which it is possible suffering may be seen to result in disproportionate damages (John, 1996). The traditional approach was also that for nervous shock to  be claimed there would be the requirement for fear to exist in the mind of the plaintiff for fear for himself or a close relatives as well as needing to