Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Consider whether the Law Commission's proposals for the reform of the law relating to nervous shock, are justified and adequate, in the light of the common law in this area.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Wed Apr 07 2004
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
Consider whether the Law Commission's proposals for the reform of the law relating to nervous shock, are justified and adequate, in the light of the common law in this area. In legal terms 'nervous shock' as it is explained in Brice V Brown is a mental injury or psychiatric illness and not simply grief and sorrow. However, where a plaintiff does suffer nervous shock, he can recover for all the consequences of the nervous shock, and that element of his suffering which is due to grief and sorrow is not to be separated and discounted. Nonetheless in recent years the courts have begun to move away from this terminology and have begun to talk about 'psychiatric illness' rather than nervous shock. It is an unquestionable fact that, in order for the law to be able to deal with the increasing demands of our times and the new cases that may...
To see the full version of this document, and 145,348 others
