Should our courts, as Jane Stapleton has suggested, wipe out recovery Essay

Should our courts, as Jane Stapleton has suggested, wipe out recovery for pure nervous shock on the basis that no reasonable bou - Essay Example It goes without saying that existed times in the history of the English society in general and the world community in particular when ‘harm’ as it goes in the law was considered to be a gross and visible injury caused to a person or persons1. As the science of psychology and psychiatry evolved and gained formal recognition, it dawned upon the society and the associated disciplines and institutions like law that the notion of a ‘psychiatric injury or harm’, sometimes unaccompanied by blood or gore was a valid, acceptable and plausible possibility. So, the institution of law attempted to commensurately extend the available remedies and recoveries, albeit to accommodate within its ambit the notions of psychiatric injury or harm. The concept of ‘nervous shock’ within the English law is a direct outcome of such humane and propitious developments.2 The problem is that the ‘nervous shock’ inflicted on a person is often not quantifiable lik e physical injuries, not to mention the many other pragmatic problems associated with this legal concept. In the light of this problem, there exists a school of intelligentsia represented by luminaries like Jane Stapleton who advocate the abolition of the legal remedies associated with such harm.3 Yet, it will be utterly sensitive and reasonable to hold that considering the problems and confusions associated with a form of injury or harm, necessitates and calls for a further evolution of the English law, rather than vying for the already scarce remedies available for it. Nervous Shock As per the English Law, ‘nervous shock’ stands to be a psychiatric illness caused to a person, usually intentionally. This legal provision also includes the psychiatric illnesses caused to a person owing to the negligent behaviour of somebody. It goes without saying that the term ‘nervous shock’ is somewhat misleading in the context of the issue it intends to cover. Yet, the E nglish Law has chosen to continue with the usage of this term to refer to the complex notion or concept it alludes to. As per the English Law, a person can claim damages, owing to the nervous shock caused to one by the intentional or negligent behaviour of a person or a party. However, recovery due to nervous shock is to some extent restrained if not impossible in the English Law. This development is influenced by the fact that mostly no reasonable boundaries for the course of action can be traced in such cases. ‘Nervous shock’ is this context is an issue that the English Law is still trying to grapple with so as to somewhat concretize and positively solidify the remedies and provisions associated with this form of wrong or injury.4 Problems Associated with the Concept of Nervous Shock In the realm of law, which depends to a great extent on logic, rationality and the analysis of reasonable and verifiable facts, the concept of ‘nervous shock’ almost seems to be an aberration and anomaly. In that context, the possibility of a mental injury or shock appears to have a predilection towards the realm of philosophy or metaphysics. Mind, no doubt, since times immemorial has been considered to be a metaphysical term, which is known and understood by many but which evades all attempts at generalization or the possibility of arriving at a common agreement as to holding some universal definition.5 Mind is an attribute that has to do