The Case Of Frost V Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police

2819 Words12 Pages
In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] Lord Steyn stated that the area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as well as different categories of claimants, which can, at times, be hard to identify and justify.

Critically discuss this statement considering the development in this area of Tort Law. Is the current distinction of primary and secondary victim justifiable? Is this area of law currently coherent and efficient?

This essay aims to provide a critical discussion of the common law of the current development of negligently inflicted psychiatric injury or illness previously known as ‘‘nervous shock’’ and the development and history in this area of tort law, while awarding damages for negligently inflicted injury and looking at the distinction between primary and secondary victim when claiming damages and why it is said to be complex.

Psychiatric injury, also known as “nervous shock’’ has been perceived to have a complex criteria and principles that have to be met before one can claim for damages. Claims for ‘‘nervous shock’’ have been seen to have adopted an illogical approach leading to unfairness in order to prevent an open to the ‘‘floodgates” for many flatulent psychiatric injury and illness claims. The ‘‘floodgate’’ argument has shown to be a disputable and problematic concern for

More about The Case Of Frost V Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police

Get Access