Emotional damages law

zenbuffy

Hi,

I am wondering about the law regarding emotional damage in Ireland.

Given a particular hypothetical situation - e.g. a product is faulty, and causes a house fire, which substantially damages the building and contents. The insurance company pays, and initiates proceedings against the product manufacturer to recover costs, which the claimant is allowed to tag onto to recover and uninsured costs.

If the claimant (the person who owned the house) has suffered significant emotional distress (requiring medical treatment) as a result of the fire, is there any recourse beyond simply recovering the costs of the GP visits as part of the above claim?

My only legal knowledge is from some quick googling on the subject, and too much TV, so while I know that people always seem to be suing other people for emotional distress in the US, I have absolutely no idea if this is at all possible in Ireland. Is it?

(I believe that I have abided by the charter in asking this, but if I haven't, my apologies, and please delete it rather than cause any trouble).

Bepolite

Great topic and exactly what the forum is designed for IMHO.

Emotional distress is available in Contract in very limited circumstances, package holidays being one, the cases are an amusing read. You seem to be approaching the topic from a Tort perspective. You're issue would be one of proximity but I'm open to correction on that. (I really need to start brushing up on my Tort law).

This piece of legislation might be worth a read.

NoQuarter

Emotional distress is unlikely and rarely recoverable in that situation. Perhaps a claim for psychiatric damage depending on the medical advice received.

McCrack

Compensation in tort for emotional damage or distress known in law as solatium is only recoverable in cases of fatal injuries. The next of kin can take a case under that head.

I agree with noquarter. A person would need to show negligently inflicted psychological injury (as opposed to emotional distress) backed up with medical records and a psychiatrists opinion to claim compensation. In practice it's not that difficult to prove.

NoQuarter

McCrack wrote: »

Compensation in tort for emotional damage or distress known in law as solatium is only recoverable in cases of fatal injuries.

There is a line of authority stating that emotional stress can be the basis of an action in tort where the sole purpose of a contract was that of enjoyment.

Bepolite

NoQuarter wrote: »

There is a line of authority stating that emotional stress can be the basis of an action in tort where the sole purpose of a contract was that of enjoyment.

Would they not be liable under contract then?

NoQuarter

Bepolite wrote: »

Would they not be liable under contract then?

Well, the contract will have been performed, so maybe not. If there is a contract for a package holiday and you go and have the holiday, the contract is performed. But if the holiday was absolutely awful, then there may be a claim in tort. The contract would be the proximity.

McCrack

I don't think there would.

I mean outside fatal injuries there isn't any way of claiming damages for emotional distress in tort. To claim mental distress in negligence the injury or harm must be something far greater than emotional distress, it must be psychological or psychiatric or a stress injury...the classic nervous shock syndrome.

If a person develops psychological injuries that where negligently inflicted they will claim under personal injuries...in other words they will issue a PI Summons not a Plenary.

NoQuarter

McCrack wrote: »

I don't think there would.

I mean outside fatal injuries there isn't any way of claiming damages for emotional distress in tort. To claim mental distress in negligence the injury or harm must be something far greater than emotional distress, it must be psychological or psychiatric or a stress injury...the classic nervous shock syndrome.

If a person develops psychological injuries that where negligently inflicted they will claim under personal injuries...in other words they will issue a PI Summons not a Plenary.

There is. Its actually an action under trespass. There is a case that is alluding me at the moment. Now, i'm not for a second saying it wouldn't be a severely difficult case to bring home but there is precedent.

zenbuffy

Interesting replies guys, thanks! It certainly seems like a very complex issue... I wonder if a diagnosis of panic/anxiety attacks would qualify as psychological injury, or must it be more severe (like PTSD)?

I don't understand the difference between Plenary or PI summons, can someone explain?

NoQuarter

zenbuffy wrote: »

I don't understand the difference between Plenary or PI summons, can someone explain?

PI or personal injury summons is just a new way to take a claim since 2004. The old way was by plenary summons. If you have legal representation it's nothing you need concern yourself with.

McCrack

NoQuarter wrote: »

There is. Its actually an action under trespass. There is a case that is alluding me at the moment. Now, i'm not for a second saying it wouldn't be a severely difficult case to bring home but there is precedent.

I'm referring to negligence. Trespass to the person is distinct category of wrong which I don't believe has any relevance this what the OP has described.

PS I appreciate the scenarios the OP describes may well fall under product liability and not negligence.

McCrack

zenbuffy wrote: »

Interesting replies guys, thanks! It certainly seems like a very complex issue... I wonder if a diagnosis of panic/anxiety attacks would qualify as psychological injury, or must it be more severe (like PTSD)?

I don't understand the difference between Plenary or PI summons, can someone explain?

Panic/anxiety symptoms are recognised by the medical profession as being psychological and if negligently inflicted would entitle the injured party to compensation.

The distinction between a Personal Injuries Summons and a Plenary in the context of this discussion was to make the point that if one was to claim for negligently inflicted psychological injury the claim is one made under negligence (PI Summons) and not breach of contract (Plenary Summons).

zenbuffy

Quite a lot to think about. So, I presume then that a PI claim would need to be taken by itself, above and beyond an attempt to simply recover uninsured costs - like a separate claim. Am I understanding that correctly?

I had read a bit about negligence, and yes, I think the scenario I'm describing is more of an "negligent harm inflicted" rather than simply product liability (which I think is being covered by the first part of the scenario, the recovery of costs).

Thanks for all the information guys, it's been very interesting.

percy212

Interesting discussion. What would the statute of limitations be on something like this (not sure if that is the right phrase...)

Bepolite

percy212 wrote: »

Interesting discussion. What would the statute of limitations be on something like this (not sure if that is the right phrase...)

It is indeed the right phrase refering to a statute of the same name.

For contract it's six years IIRC - I suspect any action would just be the limit set for the head the overall action would come under, Contract, Tort etc. Thats not to say a court can't say an action should not have been taken sooner, or that delay might be fatal to an already precarious case.

deandean

There was a thread here last year on a case about emotional distress although the circumstances were surely very traumatic:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81624055