THE FUTURE OF PSYCHIATRILC INJURY CLAIMS- A DEVELOPING AREA OF LAW:
The case of W v Essex CC and another2000WLR gives an indication that the house of lords is now prepared to contemplate extending the scope of duty of care in special circumstances and that law in this area is still developing. It is useful to consider this case in detail. The claimants ere appointed specialist adolescent frostier carers by the defendant council and they had explained, when they were approved by the council that they were not ready to accept the ceged to have been child who was known to be, or suspected of being a sexual abuser. However despite that stipulation, the council had placed a 15 year old boy Gwho had admitted and had buaten cautioned y the police …show more content…
the claimants ere not eing told that this as the case even though the facts were recorded in council files and were known to the social worker concerned. serious acts of sexual abuse against the claimants children were alleged to have been committed between 7 April and 7May1993,after a uchildren have suffered injury. The parents claimed a psychiatric injury. The council and the social worker who had placed the boy applied to strike out the claims and at first instace, the court struck out all the claims made by parents, but refused to strike out the claims of children. In 1998 court of byappeal upheld the judges order in respect of parents claim in negligence. By the time of hearing, the defenendants had accepted that the claim by the children should proceed. The parentsoreeore the house of lords argued that the claim for their own injury should also procedentorttrialr in they contended that the defandants were negligent in placing a known sexual abuser in their homes when they knew of the parents anxiety not to have sex abuser in their homes with four young children. When they discovered serious acts of sexual abuse on their children, including anal and vaginal penetration and oral sex, the claimants suffered …show more content…
In order to succeed it would be necessary that the employer knew the employee’s tendency to psychiatric illness and tool no steps to help (Walker v. Northemberland CC [1995] 1 all ER 737. There are several case pending involving teachers who claim that they have been bullied by colleagues. It has also been suggested that had teachers who take no steps to deal with bulling of students by other pupils may face claims ((2000) the times 9th august). In Sutherland v. Hatton, the court of appeal established guidelines for judges in deal with claims for negligence against employers in circumstances where claimants were forced to stop working because of stress induced psychiatric illness. Even where there is no evidence of bullying an employer can be negligent by ignoring or failing to take adequate steps to prevent stress at work. Barber v. Somerset Council [2004] UKHL 13; [2004] 2 All ER 385 Hartman v. South Essex Mental Health & Community Care NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ
The case of W v Essex CC and another2000WLR gives an indication that the house of lords is now prepared to contemplate extending the scope of duty of care in special circumstances and that law in this area is still developing. It is useful to consider this case in detail. The claimants ere appointed specialist adolescent frostier carers by the defendant council and they had explained, when they were approved by the council that they were not ready to accept the ceged to have been child who was known to be, or suspected of being a sexual abuser. However despite that stipulation, the council had placed a 15 year old boy Gwho had admitted and had buaten cautioned y the police …show more content…
the claimants ere not eing told that this as the case even though the facts were recorded in council files and were known to the social worker concerned. serious acts of sexual abuse against the claimants children were alleged to have been committed between 7 April and 7May1993,after a uchildren have suffered injury. The parents claimed a psychiatric injury. The council and the social worker who had placed the boy applied to strike out the claims and at first instace, the court struck out all the claims made by parents, but refused to strike out the claims of children. In 1998 court of byappeal upheld the judges order in respect of parents claim in negligence. By the time of hearing, the defenendants had accepted that the claim by the children should proceed. The parentsoreeore the house of lords argued that the claim for their own injury should also procedentorttrialr in they contended that the defandants were negligent in placing a known sexual abuser in their homes when they knew of the parents anxiety not to have sex abuser in their homes with four young children. When they discovered serious acts of sexual abuse on their children, including anal and vaginal penetration and oral sex, the claimants suffered …show more content…
In order to succeed it would be necessary that the employer knew the employee’s tendency to psychiatric illness and tool no steps to help (Walker v. Northemberland CC [1995] 1 all ER 737. There are several case pending involving teachers who claim that they have been bullied by colleagues. It has also been suggested that had teachers who take no steps to deal with bulling of students by other pupils may face claims ((2000) the times 9th august). In Sutherland v. Hatton, the court of appeal established guidelines for judges in deal with claims for negligence against employers in circumstances where claimants were forced to stop working because of stress induced psychiatric illness. Even where there is no evidence of bullying an employer can be negligent by ignoring or failing to take adequate steps to prevent stress at work. Barber v. Somerset Council [2004] UKHL 13; [2004] 2 All ER 385 Hartman v. South Essex Mental Health & Community Care NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ