The Influence of Reasonableness in Determining Delictual or Tort Liability for Emotional Distress or Mental Harm in American and French Law

Raheel Ahmed
{"title":"The Influence of Reasonableness in Determining Delictual or Tort Liability for Emotional Distress or Mental Harm in American and French Law","authors":"Raheel Ahmed","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"American and French law, like South African law recognises claims for emotional or mental harm. Emotional, mental, or psychological harm was only recognised by the courts in the 1800's and even though the mind and body in a sense is considered as a unit, these types of claims are not on par with claims for physical bodily injury. In fact, these types of claims can be regarded as sui generis but within the broader ambit of delictual or tort liability. Finding delictual or tort liability for emotional, mental or psychological harm has been problematic not only in South Africa but also in the United States of America and France. Even though there are fundamental differences in the law between these jurisdictions, the broader questions the courts face is whether a claimant is entitled to claim, the amount of damages that should be awarded and how to limit liability with these types of claims. Limiting liability for emotional or mental harm is generally the main policy concern but the courts have found ways of using the elements or concepts such as reasonable foreseeability of harm to limit the claims. American, French, and South African law recognise claims for emotional, mental or psychological harm by primary and secondary victims. Thus emotional, mental, or psychological harm caused directly or indirectly is compensable. In American and French law, the concept of reasonableness plays an important role, whether it be implicit or explicit, in determining delictual or tort liability for emotional or mental harm. In a sense also, reasonableness plays an overarching role in determing the liability. In a previous contribution, the influence of reasonableness in determining delictual or tort liability for psychiatric or psychological harm in English and South African law was discussed. In this contribution, the focus is on the influence of reasonableness in determining delictual or tort liability for emotional or mental harm in American and French law.","PeriodicalId":55857,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15700","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

American and French law, like South African law recognises claims for emotional or mental harm. Emotional, mental, or psychological harm was only recognised by the courts in the 1800's and even though the mind and body in a sense is considered as a unit, these types of claims are not on par with claims for physical bodily injury. In fact, these types of claims can be regarded as sui generis but within the broader ambit of delictual or tort liability. Finding delictual or tort liability for emotional, mental or psychological harm has been problematic not only in South Africa but also in the United States of America and France. Even though there are fundamental differences in the law between these jurisdictions, the broader questions the courts face is whether a claimant is entitled to claim, the amount of damages that should be awarded and how to limit liability with these types of claims. Limiting liability for emotional or mental harm is generally the main policy concern but the courts have found ways of using the elements or concepts such as reasonable foreseeability of harm to limit the claims. American, French, and South African law recognise claims for emotional, mental or psychological harm by primary and secondary victims. Thus emotional, mental, or psychological harm caused directly or indirectly is compensable. In American and French law, the concept of reasonableness plays an important role, whether it be implicit or explicit, in determining delictual or tort liability for emotional or mental harm. In a sense also, reasonableness plays an overarching role in determing the liability. In a previous contribution, the influence of reasonableness in determining delictual or tort liability for psychiatric or psychological harm in English and South African law was discussed. In this contribution, the focus is on the influence of reasonableness in determining delictual or tort liability for emotional or mental harm in American and French law.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美法两国法律在确定精神损害或精神损害的侵权责任时,合理性的影响
美国和法国法律,如南非法律,承认对精神或精神伤害的索赔。情感、精神或心理伤害只有在19世纪才被法院承认,即使在某种意义上精神和身体被视为一个单元,但这些类型的索赔与身体伤害索赔并不等同。事实上,这些类型的索赔可以被视为是独特的,但属于不法行为或侵权责任的更广泛范围。不仅在南非,而且在美利坚合众国和法国,对情感、精神或心理伤害追究侵权责任一直存在问题。尽管这些司法管辖区之间的法律存在根本差异,但法院面临的更广泛的问题是索赔人是否有权索赔、应判给的损害赔偿金额以及如何限制这类索赔的责任。限制对精神或精神伤害的赔偿责任通常是主要的政策问题,但法院已经找到了使用损害的合理可预见性等要素或概念来限制索赔的方法。美国、法国和南非法律承认主要和次要受害者对情感、精神或心理伤害的索赔。因此,直接或间接造成的情感、精神或心理伤害是可以赔偿的。在美国和法国法律中,合理性的概念无论是隐含的还是明确的,在确定情感或精神伤害的不法责任或侵权责任方面都发挥着重要作用。从某种意义上讲,合理性在确定责任方面也起着至关重要的作用。在以前的一篇文章中,讨论了英国和南非法律在确定精神或心理伤害的违法或侵权责任方面的合理性的影响。在这篇文章中,重点是在美国和法国法律中确定精神或精神伤害的违法或侵权责任时合理性的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: PELJ/PER publishes contributions relevant to development in the South African constitutional state. This means that most contributions will concern some aspect of constitutionalism or legal development. The fact that the South African constitutional state is the focus, does not limit the content of PELJ/PER to the South African legal system, since development law and constitutionalism are excellent themes for comparative work. Contributions on any aspect or discipline of the law from any part of the world are thus welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies in Online Dispute Resolution: A Solution to Consumer Disputes in South Africa? Safeguarding the Rights of Children Living in Kinship Care in South Africa "Cause of Action": How Could the Supreme Court of Appeal Get it so Wrong? Olesitse v Minister of Police (SCA) (Unreported) Case No: 470/2021 of 15 June 2022 Navigating Reputational Risks: Cautionary Considerations for South African Banks in the Unilateral Termination of Bank-Customer Relationships An Overview of the Extent of the Powers of South African Competition Authorities in the Regulation of Price Discrimination under the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in the Context of Digital Transformation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1