In Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd and Another (1997) the claimant had suffered psychiatric illness after seeing his workmate electrocuted close to him when the pole they were moving touched an overhead electric wire. The employers of the two men were both negligent and in breach of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations, regulation 44. In this case it was held that the claimant was personally at risk; it was chance that it was his colleague, rather than he, who was killed. Therefore, the claimant was entitled to compensation. Liability for stress caused by work overload The reluctance of the courts to grant compensation for psychiatric injury caused otherwise than by nervous shock has now been overcome in cases where an employee has suffered a foreseeable mental breakdown as a result of work overload endured over a period of time. The leading cases of Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority (1991) and Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995) are considered later in this and the next chapter. CAN LIABILITY BE AVOIDED? : While the cases before 1970 were concerned with whether the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant had, by operation of law, created a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, there remains a question as to whether circumstances, or the expressed intention of the parties, may override the normal legal duty. This question has been considered in at least two cases.

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-82

Chapter

In Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd and Another (1997) the claimant had suffered psychiatric illness after seeing his workmate electrocuted close to him when the pole they were moving touched an overhead electric wire. The employers of the two men were both negligent and in breach of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations, regulation 44. In this case it was held that the claimant was personally at risk; it was chance that it was his colleague, rather than he, who was killed. Therefore, the claimant was entitled to compensation. Liability for stress caused by work overload The reluctance of the courts to grant compensation for psychiatric injury caused otherwise than by nervous shock has now been overcome in cases where an employee has suffered a foreseeable mental breakdown as a result of work overload endured over a period of time. The leading cases of Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority (1991) and Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995) are considered later in this and the next chapter. CAN LIABILITY BE AVOIDED?

Chapter

In Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd and Another (1997) the claimant had suffered psychiatric illness after seeing his workmate electrocuted close to him when the pole they were moving touched an overhead electric wire. The employers of the two men were both negligent and in breach of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations, regulation 44. In this case it was held that the claimant was personally at risk; it was chance that it was his colleague, rather than he, who was killed. Therefore, the claimant was entitled to compensation. Liability for stress caused by work overload The reluctance of the courts to grant compensation for psychiatric injury caused otherwise than by nervous shock has now been overcome in cases where an employee has suffered a foreseeable mental breakdown as a result of work overload endured over a period of time. The leading cases of Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority (1991) and Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995) are considered later in this and the next chapter. CAN LIABILITY BE AVOIDED?

ABSTRACT

In Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd and Another (1997)20 the claimant had suffered psychiatric illness after seeing his workmate electrocuted close to him when the pole they were moving touched an overhead electric wire. The employers of the two men were both negligent and in breach of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations, regulation 44. In this case it was held that the claimant was personally at risk; it was chance that it was his colleague, rather than he, who was killed. Therefore, the claimant was entitled to compensation.