Recovery of Compensation for Pure Psychiatric Harm: When Employees May Recover Damages Against Their Employers - Coursework Example

Recovery of Compensation for Pure Psychiatric Harm – When Employees May Recover Damages Against Their Employers I. Introduction Claims for recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm have been a subject of much debate in court and common law as formulated by a number of cases decided by the courts presents different views as to when and who should be able to recover damages. As these cases set precedents on how to decide claims for compensation for pure psychiatric harm, we say a patch work of rules and criteria as to when, how and who should be allowed to recover damages. In many instances, the courts have been reluctant to award damages based on pure psychiatric injury. In fact, it was not until the case of Bell v GN Railway Co1 that courts expressly acknowledge the existence of psychiatric injury in relation to nervous shock. It also took the court a while before deciding in the case of Dulieu v White2 that nervous shock can have actual negative impact on the victim. Moreover, despite the decision of the court acknowledging the liability for psychiatric injury, it is still quite difficult for complainants to recover compensation. Before claimants can recover damages, they need to comply with the requirements set by the court in the case of McLoughlin v OBrian3 and in the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police4. Although it is difficult to prove the existence of psychiatric injury, there are a number of instances when the courts award damages to the claimants. Incases involving employees and their employees, the arguments of breach of duty of care towards employees (see Priestley v. Fowler5; Walker v. Northumberland County Council6) and psychiatric injury caused by the breach of the implied contractual term of mutual trust and confidence (see Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International7) have been successfully used by employees in court. There are a number of incidents where the employees may be able to recover compensation for pure psychiatric harm. For the purpose of this paper, let us limit our discussion to recovery of compensation in cases of psychiatric injury caused by nervous shock and psychiatric injury caused by stress at work. II. Psychiatric Injury Caused by Nervous Shock According to the court in the case of Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co. Ltd. v. English8, “the basic obligation of the employer arises from the relationship between him and his employee.” Based on the relationship between the employer and the employee, the employer has the duty to take reasonable care for the safety of the employees while they are at work. The employer is also duty bound not to expose the employees to unreasonable or unnecessary risk while performing their functions. In other words, where the employ suffered foreseeable nervous shock while performing his or her duties and the employer negligently failed to prevent such incident from happening, the employer is said to be in breach of his or her duty to keep his or her employees safe, thus he or she is not liable for damages. Before employees can successfully claim damages for psychiatric injury, they or she need to present proper evidences in court. Despite the fact that there are a number of decided cases which award damages to employees for pure psychiatric harm, not all cases of psychiatric injury incurred at work deserve compensation. The employer is only bound to exercise the duty of care while the employees are performing their designated duties. Moreover, employees need to meet the standards set under common law before they can recover damages. According to the court in the case of Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police9, if the claimants profess to be primary victims, they need to prove to the court that a duty of care exist between them and the employer, that the employer failed to exercise that duty of care and that because of the failure of the employer to exercise that duty of care, they suffered psychiatric injuries. The court also said in the case of White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire10 that where the duties and responsibilities of the employees is such that they are bound to be exposed to certain horrific events and they are trained to deal with these types of incidents, the employees may not be allowed to recover damages for psychiatric injury. Aside from recovering damages as direct participants of certain horrific events, employees may also recover damages from their employers as bystanders who witness a ghastly incident while performing the functions (see Rough v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board11. In the case of McFarlane v. E.E. Caledonia Ltd.12, the court said that the employees who were not directly involved in the incident are considered as bystanders and as such, they may not be allowed to recover damages for nervous shock after witnessing a horrific incident while at work “unless there is a sufficient degree of proximity, which requires both nearness in time and place and a close relationship of love and affection between plaintiff and victim” (see also White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire13; McLoughlin v OBrian14). In other words, if the people who are directly involved in the incident are not related to the claimant, the claimant may not be allowed to recover damages based on psychiatric injury. In the case of rescuers, the court said in the case of White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire15 that rescuers may not be allowed to recover damages if their acts of helping the victims of the event are done in connection with their sworn duties. We have to understand that employees who are duty bound to deliver services in case of emergencies are naturally exposed to stressful situations and unless their employers did not provide these people with the proper training to deal with these types of incidents, they may not be allowed to recover damages based on psychiatric injury suffered in connection with the jobs. For instance, doctors and nurses who come to the rescue during a catastrophe may not be allowed to recover damages for psychiatric injury connected with the event. Note that the work of doctors and nurses naturally expose them to ghastly incidents so unless their employers blatantly ignored safety measures and expose them to unnecessary harm while at work, they may not be allowed to recover damages for psychiatric harm. III. Psychiatric Injury Based On Stress At Work Proving psychiatric injury resulting from stress at work is more complicated than proving the same in case of nervous shock resulting from a stressful or horrific event. Although the courts recognize the fact that employees do suffer from psychiatric harm due to stress at work (see Walker v. Northumberland County Council16), the courts do not readily award damages in connection with this type of injury. According to the court in the case of Levy v Allied Dunbar Assurance plc17, where the employee who is holding a demanding and stressful job is given the corresponding job title and salary, he or she may not be allowed to recover damages in connection with psychiatric injury due to stress at work. The rationale of the court here is that there are certain jobs that involve a lot of stress and those employees who accept a position at work knowing the stress involve are deemed to have waived their right to claim for damages resulting for work related stress. Technically, when the employee accepts a job knowing fully what is required of him or her in connection with the job, he or she impliedly enter into a contract with his or her employer. As it is, unless the employer demand more services and subject the employee to more stress than what the job usually entail, the employee shall have no ground to recover damages from the employer. A test for recovery of damages based on psychiatric injury due to stress at work is that the harm must be foreseeable. In the case of Walker v. Northumberland County Council18, the court grant the claim for damages for psychiatric injury because the employer failed to reduce the amount of work given to the claimant even after the claimant suffered nervous breakdown. Note that in this case, the employer is already aware that the employee has specific needs, thus, the employer is now duty bound to exercise prudence and sensitivity when it comes to dealing with the employee. In other words, the employer’s knowledge regarding the vulnerability of the employee made him liable for damages in this case. The case of Walker however should be distinguished from the case of Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Bolts and Nuts) Ltd19 where the court specifically said that there is a limit as to what the employers out to know with regards to their employees. According to the court in this case, the employer is not expected to know all the vulnerabilities of his or her employees. We have to understand that employers rely on the professed abilities of the employees when they apply for work and if the employees failed to disclose information regarding their vulnerabilities, the non-disclosure may work against the employee. As it is, if the employer exercised reasonable and prudent actions to safeguard his or her employees based on what he knows and what he ought to know about his employees, he may not be held liable for damages for psychiatric harm. Moreover, where the only recourse left for the employer to protect the well-being of the employee is to demote the employee and assign him or her to a less stressful post, the court ruled that the employee should not be held liable for damages for demoting the employee (see Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Bolts and Nuts) Ltd20). We have to understand that the very basic consideration here is the well-being of the employee so if there is a need to remove the employee from the stressful post to protect him or her from possible injuries, such action of removing him may not be considered as a tortuous act. IV. Conclusion The numerous decisions of the court in relation to psychiatric injury have created a patchwork of rules and criteria as to when employees may successfully claim damages for psychiatric harm. In deciding cases brought before them, the courts always look back into judicial precedents before deciding the case at hand. In some cases, worthy claimants were denied compensation simply because the courts are afraid that giving compensation to a certain class of people will open the floodgates of suits. As it is, before employees are able to recover damages, they need to satisfy the requirements set by law. If the claimants fail to satisfy the requirements under the law, they many not be able to recover damages. Bibliography Books 1. Painter R, (2004) Cases and Materials on Employment Law, Oxford University Press 2. Sargeant M, (2003), Employment Law, Pearson Schools 3. Selwyn N, (2004), Selwyn’s Law of Employment, Thirteenth Edition, Lexis Nexis Table of Cases 1. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310 2. Bell v GN Railway Co (1890) 26 L.R. (IR) 428 at 442 3. Dulieu v White [1901] 2 K.B. 669 4. Levy v Allied Dunbar Assurance plc [2000] WL 33148711 5. Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20 6. Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 20 7. McFarlane v. E.E. Caledonia Ltd. [1994] 2 All E.R. 1 8. McLoughlin v OBrian [1982] 2 All ER 298 9. Priestley v. Fowler (1837) 3 M. & W. 1, 6 10. Rough v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board [1995] S.C. 364 11. Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Bolts and Nuts) Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 1776 12. Walker v. Northumberland County Council [1995] 1 All E.R. 737) 13. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 A.C. 455 14. Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co. Ltd. v. English [1938] A.C. 57 Read More