KEMBAR78
Mental Harm Alt Flowchart | PDF | Damages | Tort
Scribd
Upload
39 views1 page

Mental Harm Alt Flowchart

The document outlines a flowchart for assessing mental harm claims under the Mental Harm provisions of the Civil Liability Act (CLA). It details the criteria for determining whether the mental harm is consequential or pure, the duty of care owed, and the recognition of psychiatric illness. The flowchart guides the reader through various considerations such as the relationship between the plaintiff and the victim, and the circumstances surrounding the mental harm.

Uploaded by

angus.ta13
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
39 views1 page

Mental Harm Alt Flowchart

The document outlines a flowchart for assessing mental harm claims under the Mental Harm provisions of the Civil Liability Act (CLA). It details the criteria for determining whether the mental harm is consequential or pure, the duty of care owed, and the recognition of psychiatric illness. The flowchart guides the reader through various considerations such as the relationship between the plaintiff and the victim, and the circumstances surrounding the mental harm.

Uploaded by

angus.ta13
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

LAWS1061 Torts

T2, 2020

Mental Harm CLA Flowchart


This flowchart assumes that the plaintiff has suffered “mental harm” (defined in s 27 as
“impairment of a person’s mental condition”

Is the mental harm “consequential mental Consider s 32(1) + (3) as to whether a


Yes duty of care is owed
harm” (s 27)?
Yes Should the D have foreseen that a person of
“normal fortitude” might suffer a “recognised
nN psychiatric illness” in the “circumstances of
No

o the case”? Consider the personal injury


suffered by the plaintiff

If DoC owed
The mental harm will therefore be “pure mental harm” (s 27).
Consider s32(1) + (2) as to whether a duty of care is owed
Should the D have foreseen that a person of “normal fortitude” might suffer
a “recognised psychiatric illness” in the “circumstances of the case”?
Consider:
* Was the mental injury the result of “a sudden shock”? (see Annetts)
* Did the P “witness, at the scene, a person being killed, injured, or put in
peril”? (see Wicks) Consider s 33
* What was the nature of the relationship between the P and any person Was the P’s mental
killed, injured, or put in peril? (see Wicks and Annetts)
harm a “recognised
* Was there a pre-existing relationship between the P and D?
psychiatric illness”?
If DoC owed

Yes
No

Consider s 31
Was the P’s mental harm a “recognised No No liability to
psychiatric illness”? pay damages
nNo (s 31) / court Part 3 of the
cannot award CLA does not
Yes

damages (s 33) preclude


recovery

Consider s 30(1)-(2)
a) Did the P “witness, at the scene, the
Part 3 of the CLA victim being killed, injured or put in
No P not entitled to recover
does not preclude Yes peril”? (see Wicks)
damages
recovery
OR nNo
b) Is the P a “close member of the family”
nNo
of the victim? (s 30(5))

You might also like