Critically evaluate, in relation to the common law duty of care, the Essay - 3

Critically evaluate, in relation to the common natural virtue certificate of indebtedness of sympathize with, the liability of employers for psychiatrical illnesses suffered b - Essay ExampleIn other four standardised cases in 2002, the Court of Appeal stated that for employees to gain compensation from their employers, they must inform the latter of their trying going conditions and give them a chance to remedy the situation. Damages for psychiatric injury caused by disagreeable working conditions can only be recovered where the employee exhibited clear signs of the injury suffered. This must have been somewhat foreseeable by the employer. Liability for psychiatric damage can be claimed where the employer breached a work of circumspection by non acting in response to the reasonably foreseeable signs of damage (Munkman, 1990). Courts developed volenti non cash in ones chips injuria, where the employee (defendant) had to prove the employers liability beyond a healthy dou bt in the 19th Century. This law excluded claims by employees against their employers. This law usually affected the manufacturing industry. Imposing such vast liability would be in any case costly and would impede the growth of the industry (Butler, 2002b). An employee who suffered from psychiatric illness collect to stress at work is not enough to claim reparation of damages from the employer. In the Rorris on case, Lord Reed govern that there must be a recognised psychiatric illness and not mere first gear or anxiety. The defendant could recover damages only if she sustained a psychiatric illness commonly recognised as psychiatric disorders by a recognised a psychiatrist. She also had to have neer been diagnosed with psychiatric disorder before. An action based on mere negligence only is not fitting for a claim (Butler, 2002a). An employee who successfully proves the case can claim primary liability or secondary liability. To claim primary liability, the employee must prov e Existence of a Duty of Care The employers duty is to offer reasonable care and to avoid exposing a member of staff to preventable risk of injury. This is picture in the Walker vs. Northumberland County Council (1995) case. Similarly, in Cross Lord MacFadyen said that an employers common law duty is to provide conclusive care for his workers wellbeing and health. This should extend to include a reasonable duty of care, which does not expose the worker to working circumstances that have the potential of bringing him or her mental damage or disease (Selwyn, 1990). Foreseeability If a prediction cannot be made, then duty of care will not arise. A worker would have to prove that, on his part, the risk of getting psychiatric injury was predictable. Anguish, anger, sorrow and anxiety cannot attract reimbursement because they are ordinary feelings experienced by all valet de chambre beings (Giliker, 2010). People can claim rewards only in situations where psychiatric illness is reasonab ly foreseeable. This was the case as indicated by Lord Bridge of Harwich. Breach of Duty If the injury is foreseeable, then follows the inquiry of whether or not there is breach of duty of care. To determine this, complaints made by the worker should have been clearly recorded. The invoice must sufficiently prove that the employer was aware that a psychiatric illness was likely to occur due to the employee working under stressful conditions. Then it should be determined whether the employer acted promptly by initiating a test into the issue. If so, it is hard to say