Principles of Business Law Principles of Business Law - AY 2015/2016 Principles of Business Law Session 7 Law of Tort 2 AY 2016/2017 Apr Sem (c) 2016 Ngee Ann Polytechnic (c) 2015 Ngee Ann Polytechnic

Principles of Business Law - AY 2015/2016 Learning Outcomes At the end of this session, you are able to: Evaluate when psychiatric damage is claimable Recognise the situations giving rise to vicarious liability Explain the defences in tort law Explain when an adviser is liable for negligent misstatement Identify the elements required for the tort of defamation Explain the defences and remedies for defamation Appreciate the difficulties in claiming for online defamation AY 2016/2017 Apr Sem (c) 2016 Ngee Ann Polytechnic (c) 2015 Ngee Ann Polytechnic

(c) 2016 Ngee Ann Polytechnic Required Reading Chapter 8 Law of Tort AY 2016/2017 Apr Sem (c) 2016 Ngee Ann Polytechnic

Negligence – Psychiatric Harm Primary Victim - Physical Injury  - Psychiatric Injury Secondary Victim - Grief & sorrow  - Psychiatric harm ? AY 2016/2017 Apr Sem (c) 2016 Ngee Ann Polytechnic

Negligence – Psychiatric Harm P suffers anxiety, distress or psychiatric illness after witnessing or hearing an accident caused by negligently D. Courts reluctant to allow such claims by secondary victims Only allowed If psychiatric illness resulted Sufficient proximity between P & D based on 3 elements in McLoughlin v O’Brian AY 2016/2017 Apr Sem (c) 2016 Ngee Ann Polytechnic

Negligence – Psychiatric Harm McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983) – p 174 The woman with mental trauma case Held : P could claim for her psychiatric harm from D who negligently killed her child and seriously injured her husband and 2 other children because (1) P was sufficiently close in relationship to primary victims; (2) P was sufficiently close in time and space to the accident and (3) P was sufficiently close by sight or hearing as she saw her family’s suffering in accident’s immediate aftermath. Court of Appeal in Ngiam Kong Seng v Lim Chiew Hock (2008) ruled that in psychiatric harm cases the 3 elements in McLoughlin’s case should be used to decide legal proximity in the Spandeck test AY 2016/2017 Apr Sem (c) 2016 Ngee Ann Polytechnic

(c) 2016 Ngee Ann Polytechnic http://goo.gl/l7eLJA AY 2016/2017 Apr Sem (c) 2016 Ngee Ann Polytechnic