Psychiatrict-negligence in Tort Law - Essay Example

The following research examines liability and the probable outcomes. The modern tort of negligence as observed in numerous cases requires the existence of a care duty that the claimant owes the defendant, violation of duty and considerable injury or sabotage, which emanates from that violation.2 Every previously mentioned aspect of the case in the given case is subject to assessment and establishment in every claim against the defendant, for any suit against the defendant to yield positively.

Foremost, it is essential to delineate the range of the members that owe a duty of care. Negligence essentially deals with paying damages to victims of an accident, resulting from other parties’ carelessness. If a duty of care is indistinct in the given case, then the tort of negligence is not necessary from that point when analyzing that situation. In this study, determining who owes the other a duty of care as the fire incident occurred is immensely dependent on Lord Atkins’s neighbor principle that prescribes a framework for analyzing the validity of duty of care.

Negligent liability of psychological harm thus depends on a test called the neighbor principle.3 The foremost action by the court when determining liability for payment of damages a conduction of the neighbour test. The court further enquires whether there existed core policy considerations that dictated that not duty of care and eventual liability for damages should exist. Moreover, the prescribed requirements before imposition of a duty of care include the foreseeability of the damage, a proximal linkage between the involved parties; both criteria should be under justifiable and reasonable circumstances.

4 However, that criterion is not essentially necessary. The aspect of foreseeability refers to what a reasonable person would have predicted in the imminent circumstances and is ubiquitous in the offense of negligence. It is founded on the Atkins’s neighbor rule, but can pose as a test the remoteness of damage and violation of rightful duty where the loss ought has to be foreseeable as a probability.5 Proximity refers to the legal rather than physical proximity and is relevant considering whether the involved persons and parties are neighbors in the law, such as Eric and the Dwain’s knitting needle factory.

Though this test has a shallow framework, other factors that enhance the determination of liability for negligence tort include damage types of economic loss, personal injury, property sabotage and psychological damage, which is relevant to our case of study. Other considerations are whether the damage was through omission, was through a third party and if the defendants are under a special law classification. In the light of this accident, Eric suffered physical injury from the flames, fumes and the hassle of saving the trapped people in the burning factory.

Eric is thus, a primary victim. Dwain as a defendant in this scenario is a neighbor to Eric and therefore owes Eric a duty of care. It is Eric’s legal right to live in a stress free life, and his neighbor, the knitting needle factory is liable to compensate him for any harm he experiences,