I am in the midst of preparing for a Law of Tort (law of wrong-doing) paper when I came across a pathetic thought that I believe I should share with those killing time.

Under the Law of Tort, is a branch in which 'psychiatric injury' is discussed. As per Lord Bridge in the case of McLoughlin v O'Brian, "the injury must be a mental condition that amounts to a positive psychiatric illness as diagnosed by a doctor/psychiatrist". For eg. Sleeping disorders, tension and depression. It all started in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson where a woman found the decayed remains of a snail in her root beer. As a result, she suffered shock (psychiatric injury).

I wonder, if authors of the Law of Tort texts are themselves liable to readers who suffer psychiatric injury as a result of reading the texts. Sleeping disorders, tension and depression. I've been going through all that. heh.

Speaking of which, the law of nuisance (also under the Law of Tort), is itself a nuisance. I just don't see why, for over 60 years, they coukd not come to a conclusion if the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (a subtopic in the law of nuisance) should be abolished, or expanded, or kept within strict liability.

This is clearly a course in which what I discuss in the papers will never have a right answer even when I'm rotting underground.

Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com