LLB102 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Nervous Shock In English Law, Wrongful Life, Anger
WEEK$8!LECTURE:(DAMAGE&AND&CONCURRENT&AND&
PROPROTIONATE)LIABILITY)!
Re-cap!
!
Elements!of!the!negligence!action:!
!
1. Duty:!does!D!owe!P!a!duty!of!care?!!
• Question!of!law!
!
2. Breach:!has!D!breached!the!legally!determined!standard!of!care?!
• Question!of!law!and!fact!
!
3. Damage!
• Recognised!kind!of!damage!
• Factual!causation!
• Scope!of!liability!
!
- Negligence!Action!of!case!therefore!plaintiff!has!to!suffer!damage!to!be!successful!
- Actionable!only!if!Damage!to!plaintiff!is!proved!and!recognised!by!the!law!and!is!linked!with!
causation!to!the!fault!of!the!Defendant!!
- The!fact!that!Plaintiff!has!suffered!damage!will!not!guarantee!that!the!action!will!succeed!there!
needs!to!be!a!duty!owed!by!the!defendant!to!the!plaintiff!!
- If!the!plaintiff!cannot!prove!which!Defendant!is!at!fault!where!there!are!multiple!defendants!or!
if!all!defendant!were!at!fault,!the!Plaintiff’s!action!will!fail!
!
The!Damage!Element!!
!
1. Loss/damage!suffered!by!Plaintiff!must!be!of!a!kind!recognised!at!law!
2. Loss/damage!must!have!been!caused!by!the!Defendant’s!breach!of!duty!
3. Loss/damage!must!be!not!too!remote!a!consequence!of!the!Defendant’s!breach!
!
!
1. Recognised!at!Law!
!
- Whether!the!damage!is!recognised!at!law!is!a!Question!of!Law!
- Until!legally!recognised!damage!is!suffered!by!a!plaintiff,!there!is!no!action!in!negligence!!
- Time!limitation!commences!when!the!loss!is!suffered!by!the!plaintiff!
- Examples!of!recognised!damage:!
o Personal!(physical)!injury!
§ E.g.!Broken!leg!
o Property!damage!
§ If! a! plaintiffs! car! is! involved! in! an! accident! and! car’s! rear! end! is! smashed=!
property!damage!
o Economic!loss!
§ Pure!
• Prevents!the!plaintiff!from!working=!economic!loss!
§ Consequential!
• Plaintiff! may! suffer! physical! injury! and! consequential! to! that! economic!
injury;!broken!leg!à!hospital!bills!!
o Psychiatric!injury!(nervous!shock)!
§ Medically!recognisable!psychiatric!illness!
!
Loss!of!chance!
- Loss!of!opportunity!!
- Has!been!recognised!in!some!pure!economic!loss!claims!
o Eg:!a!solicitor’s!failure!to!institute!legal!proceedings!within!the!time!period!
o Plaintiff!was!injured,!at!18!got!legal!advice!saying!not!to!take!action.!After!the!three!3!
time!limitation!was!over!he!sued!the!minister!for!failing!to!give!him!independent!legal!
advice! when! he! was! in! his! care! as! he! had! lost! his! chance! at! ! taking! legal! action! to!
recover!compensation!(the!economic!loss).!The!High!Court!held!that!a!duty!of!care!was!
owed! by! the! state! through! the! minister! that! Julie! included! the! requirement! to! obtain!
legal! advice! from! a! competent! legal!practitioner.! If! he! had! received! such! advice,! he!
would!not! have!been!persuaded! from!pursuing!an! action! for!damages.! The! advice!the!
plaintiff! received! at! the! age! of! 18! was! found! not! to! be! competent! as! it! was! based! on!
incorrect! and! inadequate! information! provided! by! the! department.! Therefore,! but! for!
the!breach!of!ministers!duty!that!is,!failing!to!give!the!plaintiff!independent!legal!advice,!
the!plaintiff! would! not!have!sought! the! advice!at! 18!and!relied! upon! it.! Therefore!the!
high!court!found!in!favour!of!the!plaintiff.!!
- Compare!with!physical!injury!/!medical!negligence!
o Eg:!lost!chance!of!a!better!medical!outcome!(argument!rejected!by!HC)!
§ They! sue! claiming! damage! is! the! loss! of! an! opportunity!for! a! better! medical!
outcome!
In!Tabet&v&Gett,!!
Defendant:!doctor!was!negligent!in!failing!to!diagnose!a!brain!tumour!in!the!6!year!old!Plaintiff.!
The! doctor! had! not! ordered! a! timely! CT! Scan.! The! plaintiff! suffered! brain! damage.! Had! the! tumour!
been!discovered,!earlier!treatment!would!have!resulted!in!a!40%!chance!of!a!better!outcome!(some!of!
the!brain!damage!may!have!been!avoided).!It!could!not!be!established,!on!the!balance!of!probabilities,!
that!!earlier!diagnosis!=>!no!brain!damage.!The!trial!judge!concluded!that!the!defendant!had!caused!
the!plaintiff!to!lose!this!40%!chance!of!a!better!medical!outcome.!The!High!Court!considered!whether!
or!not!the!common!law!of!Australia!should!not!recognise!the!loss!of!a!chance!of!a!better!outcome!as!
actionable!damage! in! medical! negligence!cases.!Concluded!that! the! damage!suffered!by! the! plaintiff!
was!the!physical!injury,!which!occurred!rather!than!the!lost!chance!of!avoiding!it.!Could!not!establish!
that!the!Defendant’s! breach! caused! that! physical! injury! on! the! balance! of!probabilities!-!so!Plaintiff!
could!not!recover!and!was!unsuccessful!in!their!action.!!
!
Leading!judgement!given!by!Kiefel!J!(Hayne!and!Bell!JJ!and!Crennan!J!agreeing):!
!
& “Expressing&what&is&said&to&have&been&lost&as&the&loss&of&a&chance&was&said&...&to&divert&attention&
from& the& proper& connection& between& fault& and& damage...& in& cases& of& the& kind& in& question& what& is&
involved&is&in&truth¬&a&loss&of&a&chance.&&The&factors&present&in&that&chance&have&played&themselves&
out&when&physical&injury&or&death&occurs.&&What&is&in&issue&is&a&past&event”&(at![143])!
!
- In!Australia,!the!loss!of!change!of!a!better!medical!outcome!is!not!recognised!by!the!law!
- The!plaintiff!needs!to!show!on!the!balance!of!probability!that!the!defendant!caused!the!harm!!
!
Damage!not!recognised!
- !Damage!too!vague!to!assess!
o Negligence!action!=!reputation!is!too!vague!a!loss!to!be!recognised!by!law!
- “Wrongful!life”!cases!
o Negligence!in! the! conception! which! lead! to! severe! disability=! negligence! they! would!
have!gone!through!with!the!pregnancy!if!they!had!known!of!the!defect!!
- Associated!with!illegality!
o Plaintiff! who! claims! loss! which! derived! from! a! benefit!of! illegal! activity!will! not! be!
recognised!
o The!court!will!not!indirectly!support!illegal!activity!
§ E.g.!Loss!of!income!due!to!injury!preventing!them!from!selling!illegal!drugs!!!
- Fright,!anguish,!grief!(different!to!pure!psychiatric!injury=!medically!recognised)!!
o *Tame&v&NSW;&*Annetts&v&Australian&Stations&Pty&Ltd!
&
*Tame&v&NSW;&*Annetts&v&Australian&Stations&Pty&Ltd!held:!!
&
“a& plaintiff& who& is& unable& affirmatively& to& establish& the& existence& of& a& recognisable&
psychiatric&illness&is¬&entitled&to&recover.&&Grief&and&sorrow&are&among&the&‘ordinary&and&
inevitable& incidents& of& life’;& the& very& universality& of& these& emotions& denies& to& them& the&
character& of& compensable& loss& under& the& tort& of& negligence”& & (citations! omitted)!
(Gummow!and!Kirby!JJ!at!382)!
!
**!If!Q!tells!you!that!it!is!a!medically!recognised!psychiatric!injury,!take!that!and!say!it!is!legally!
recognised!and!use!*Tame&v&NSW;&*Annetts&v&Australian&Stations&Pty&Ltd&as!authority.!If!it!says!
grief,!fright! or! anguish! say! it! is! not! recognised!by!law,!can! also! use!*Tame&v&NSW;&*Annetts&v&
Australian&Stations&Pty&Ltd!as!authority!**!
!
- Vexation!
o Not!matter!how!annoyed!the!plaintiff!is!,!they!cannot!sue!in!negligence!!
o If! the! vexation! arises! due! to! damage! of! property! they! may! take! another! action! e.g!
trespass!
!
2. Factual!causation!
!
- Wrongdoer!compensates!the!victim!!
- Even!if!a!duty!was!owed,!and!was!breached!and!the!plaintiff!had!suffered!damage!recognised!
by!law,!it!must!be!established!that!the!loss!suffered!was!the!result!of!the!defendant!breach!of!
duty!=>!causation!!
- Plaintiff!must!prove!that!their!damage!was!caused!by!the!Defendant’s!wrongful!act!or!omission!
o Did!the!Defendant’s!negligent!conduct!play!a!part!in!bringing!about!the!Plaintiff’s!harm?!
o If!cannot!prove,!action!will!fail!!
- Question!of!fact!
- Two!issues:!
o Standard!of!Proof!
o Tests!for!Factual!Causation!
!
2.1 Standard!of!proof!
!
- Plaintiff!must!establish!factual!causation!on!the!Balance!Of!Probabilities!(that!defendant!
caused!their!loss!or!damage)!=!*Tabet&v&Gett!
- Plaintiff! must! establish! that! it! is! more! likely! than! not,! that! the! defendant’s! breach!
caused!or!materially!contributed!to!the!plaintiff!damage.!!
o “More!likely!than!not”!=!A!greater!than!50%!chance/!likelihood!that!Defendant’s!
breach!caused!Plaintiff’s!damage!
o So!if!causation!established!on!a!60%!basis!the!requirement!of!factual!causation!
has!been!met!as!the!likelihood!is!more!than!50%!∴!Plaintiff!would!be!entitled!to!
recover!all!their!loss,!that!is,!the!plaintiff!is!compensated!100%!
o But! if! causation! only! established! on! a! 40%! basis!it! is! not! on! the! balance! of!
probabilities!and! doesn’t! not! met! the! 50%! requirement! of! factual! causation,!
therefore!the!!Plaintiff!would!then!!receive!nothing!(0%);!action!would!fail!
§ All!or!nothing!approach!!
o Hotson&v&EBA&Health&Authority&[1987]!AC!750!
!
!
!
Document Summary
Negligence action of case therefore plaintiff has to suffer damage to be successful. Actionable only if damage to plaintiff is proved and recognised by the law and is linked with causation to the fault of the defendant. The fact that plaintiff has suffered damage will not guarantee that the action will succeed there needs to be a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff cannot prove which defendant is at fault where there are multiple defendants or if all defendant were at fault, the plaintiff"s action will fail. Whether the damage is recognised at law is a question of law. Until legally recognised damage is suffered by a plaintiff, there is no action in negligence. Time limitation commences when the loss is suffered by the plaintiff. Examples of recognised damage: personal (physical) injury. If a plaintiffs car is involved in an accident and car"s rear end is smashed= property damage: economic loss.
