| Summary: | The duty of care in cases of negligently inflicted psychiatric injury has long been limited using a number of mechanisms, all with the intention of ensuring that the ambit of liability remains within manageable bounds. These limiting mechanisms, now known in Australia as “considerations” relevant to an overriding test of reasonable foreseeability, have commonly been criticised as lacking in principled foundations, leading to a number of calls for their abandonment. This article extends these arguments, contending that the court’s consideration of whether the plaintiff and a person seriously injured or killed were in a close and loving relationship can also be understood on normative grounds. In particular, the court’s consideration of this factor can be regarded as principled from the perspective of Aristotelian corrective justice.
|
|---|