I don't know maybe I'm wrong but I used the Philips v Durgan and the Turner v Irish Rail cases for non-consequential psychiatric injury as well as the nervous shock cases like McLoughlain because I felt in both cases that there was negligence. In Philips the negligence of the brother to tell the sister about the state of the kitchen led to a fire occurring. In Turner, the negligence of the railway company to fix the post fence resulted in a child entering it and nearly being killed by the train. I differentiated between physical injury occuring to a plaintiff together with the onset of mental illness in that the courts are more willing to compensate in this situation than in a situation where there is no physical injury to the plaintiff but some other event triggers a mental illness in them. It is in this situation that the cases of Philips and Turner fit in. My argument based around the fact that traditionally the courts were reluctant to compensate for psychological injury due to the floodgates but that advances in medical science has greatly reduced the possibility of this occuring. I mentioned the tests of remoteness and proximity in relation to both non-conseq psychiatric injury and conseq psychiatric injury. Well thats what I got out of the question I hope I got on ok with it.
I welcome contradictions. On Oct 13, 8:11 pm, ShellBelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the psych injury Q i only discussed nervous shock as it asked for > negligently inflicted psych injury thereby excluding intentional > infliction of emotional damage..... Is this right?? > > I agree it was the fairest paper in years. > > On Oct 13, 7:37 pm, Perdy22 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Well done, > > > Hopefully we will get the magic 50 > > > On Oct 13, 6:32 pm, padraig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I agree, I know some people will hate me for saying this, but it was > > > the fairest tort paper I've seen in ages. > > > There is usually some question on an obscure niche area or a problem > > > question designed to catch you out. > > > As far as I can tell, neither happened today. > > > I think (although I haven't looked at it since) that that question was > > > purely nuisance. > > > I did the psychiatric one too, just prattled on about nervous shock > > > and infliction of emotional distress (very little on that) > > > Defamation Q was grand Re: Defences. I thought there was a lot going > > > on in Q7 (Bertie) > > > All in all a fine paper > > > > On Oct 13, 6:07 pm, Perdy22 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi hows it going? > > > > I thought it was a fair paper to be honest. I sat it last year too and > > > > I though it was much tougher. What questions did you do? Can you > > > > clarify for me if the nuisance question was only about nuisance or did > > > > I miss any other issue in it? In relation to the psychaitric question. > > > > Any ideas on what was relevant. I put in the issues on non- > > > > consequential psychaitric injury and mental distress accompanied by a > > > > physical injury. I used cases like fletcher, mullaly, kelly, alcock, > > > > etc. Please tell me that I'm right in these issues!!!!!!!! I rushed > > > > the 5th question which for me was on trespass defences. I though the > > > > defamation question was ok, alot of writing for it though. In general > > > > I was happy enough with it. How about you? > > > > > On Oct 13, 2:49 pm, padraig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Any thoughts on the paper??- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
