Voluntary Assumption Of Tort Liability In English Law Case Study

Voluntary Assumption Of Tort Liability In English Law - Case Study ExamplePolicy considerations played a large role in restricting employee claims, in the interests of economic and manufacturing growth, as well as the principle of contributory negligence and carmine non fit injuria. More recently, the law in this area has developed into a complex system ground on the obvious potential problems created by broadening or narrowing too far the limits of the law. The courts hurt recognized that a single, simple test to determine psychiatric malign is not sufficient, for reasons that concern twain its potentially uncontrollable nature, and political and moral parameters imposed by the structure of western open-market societies on the profound system.2 In order to fully understand exactly what principles and tests the courts adopt, one must examine the relevant case law. The law in this area is vaguely split into a) the psychological or physical harm actually occurring to the employe e, and b) the physical harm occurring to a third party, witnessed by the employee.In cases, where the harm directly occurred to the employee, the primal test is one of foreseeability if it can be proven that physical or psychiatric injury was moderately foreseeable, compensation for psychiatric harm is possible.3 Where an employee suffered a nervous breakdown at work, the courts indeed asked whether the breakdown was clean foreseeable, actual or probable physical harm was not relevant or necessary.4 Rose J confirms this, stating the employer whose system of work negligently induces psychiatric injury without any physical injuryis just as liable as one who causes physical injury.5 Yet does the concept not appear a little simplistic? The issues surrounding the decision in Walker have the potential to open some(prenominal) difficulties different jobs involve different levels of stress and risk, whilst individuals react differently to stress depending on their vulnerability.