Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Thin-Skull Plaintiffs, Socio-Cultural "Abnormalities" And The Dangers Of An Objective Test For Hypersensitivity, Eugene C. Lim
Thin-Skull Plaintiffs, Socio-Cultural "Abnormalities" And The Dangers Of An Objective Test For Hypersensitivity, Eugene C. Lim
Dalhousie Law Journal
The extent to which "hypersensitivity" can serve as a legal basis for demanding additional compensation has always been a controversial issue in tort law. A key challenge facing courts lies in determining how the "thin-skull rule," traditionally related to physical conditions that predispose an individual to additional injury, can be applied to claims from "hypersensitive" plaintiffs citing personality-linked vulnerabilities of a religious, socio-cultural, or psychiatric nature. This article critically evaluates the viability of the "ordinary-fortitude test" adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mustapha v. Culligan, and discusses the relative merits of a "multi-factorial test" in determining the admissibility …
Tort Liability For Psychiatric Damage, Mitchell Mcinnes
Tort Liability For Psychiatric Damage, Mitchell Mcinnes
Dalhousie Law Journal
One of tort law's great failures is its treatment of claims for psychiatric damage (or, to use a misleading but more popular term, nervous shock'). While a great deal of progress has been made since the days when liability would lie only if a plaintiff also suffered physical injury', or at least reasonably feared for her personal safety3 , the law remains largely unsatisfactory and in need of reform. Illogical and arbitrary rules abound with the result that worthy claimants are often denied compensation. Recent attempts at clarification and rationalization by the House of Lords4 and the High Court of …
The Employer's Intentional Tort - Should It Be Recognized In Canadian Jurisdictions?, Leigh West
The Employer's Intentional Tort - Should It Be Recognized In Canadian Jurisdictions?, Leigh West
Dalhousie Law Journal
At the inception of Canadian worker compensation legislation, an historic trade off agreement was made between employers and their workers. By virtue of this agreement, the right of workers to sue their employer in tort was removed and in return workers were to receive swift, certain, but limited, compensation payments for job-related injuries and illness, regardless of fault. With a few minor exceptions, this agreement made worker compensation the exclusive remedy available to an injured worker. It also lodged with the various provincial worker compensation boards the responsibility to adjudicate whether or not the injury or illness claimed was one …