Criteria for claiming compensation for secondary psychiatric victims in English law and its application in Iranian law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student in in Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities. university of Guilan. Rasht. iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities. university of Guilan. Rasht. iran.

Abstract

Psychiatric damage is any damage to the psyche of people that causes their illness. Sometimes the victim himself is not exposed to the accident, but as a result of the accident to another person, suffers from Psychiatric injury, which are called "secondary victims". Given that the scope of such victim is wide, more restrictions should be applied to compensate for the Psychiatric damage of such victims. Designing and identifying an appropriate and efficient rule in this subject requires examining various aspects of the subject and comparative study. A study of British jurisprudence reveals the richness of this legal system in the face of this challenge. Accordingly, the main question of this article is what are the criteria for claiming compensation for secondary victims in English and Iranian law? In England, special and mandatory conditions are set to limit the scope of these victims, while in Iranian law there are no special rules. In England, the victim must have a close emotional tie with the immediate victim and must be close in time and space to the accident and must observe the accident. In addition, his psychiatric damage must have resulted from a sudden shock and a horrific event. This study shows that the restrictive mechanisms of psychological compensation used in English law have some shortcomings, but can be useful in Iranian law to achieve foreseeability and directness of damages.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    - کتاب‌ها

    1. امامی، میر سید حسن (1395). حقوق مدنی، ج 1، تهران: اسلامیه.
    2. بابایی، ایرج (1397). حقوق مسئولیت مدنی و الزامات خارج از قرارداد، تهران: نشر میزان.
    3. بابائی، ایرج (1396). حقوق مسئولیت مدنی؛ مبتنی بر نقد و بررسی آراء و رویۀ قضائی، ج 1، تهران: مرکز مطبوعات و انتشارات قوۀ قضائیه.
    4. باریکلو، علیرضا (1397). مسئولیت مدنی، تهران: نشر میزان.
    5. پروین، فرهاد (1382). خسارات معنوی در حقوق ایران، تهران: انتشارات ققنوس.
    6. ره‌پیک، حسن (1393). حقوق مسئولیت مدنی و جبران‌ها، تهران: خرسندی.
    7. سلطانی‌نژاد، هدایت‌اله (1394). بررسی تطبیقی خسارت معنوی، تهران: میزان دانش.
    8. صفایی، سید حسین و رحیمی، حبیب‌اله (1397). مسئولیت مدنی تطبیقی، تهران: مؤسسۀ مطالعات و پژوهشهای حقوقی شهر دانش.
    9. صفائی، سید حسین، رحیمی، حبیب‌الله (1396). مسئولیت مدنی (الزامات خارج از قرارداد)، تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها (سمت).
    10. عمید، حسن (1385). فرهنگ فارسی عمید (جیبی)، تهران: امیرکبیر.
    11. قاسم‌زاده، مرتضی (1395). حقوق مدنی: الزام‌ها و مسئولیت مدنی بدون قرارداد، تهران: نشر میزان.
    12. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1395). الزام‌های خارج از قرارداد، ج 1، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.

     

    - مقالات

    1. آجری آیسک، عاطفه (1395). «دعاوی بازماندگان برای مطالبۀ خسارت معنوی ناشی از صدمات جسمانی»، مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، زمستان، ش 96.
    2. دیانی، عبدالرسول و براهیم باستانی، معصومه (1396). «جبران خسارت ناشی از صدمات بدنی در حقوق ایران و انگلیس». تحقیقات حقوقی ایران و بین‌الملل، تابستان، ش 36.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    1. Cooke, John (2015). Law of Tort, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    2. Elliott, Catherine, Quinn, Frances (2017). Tort Law, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    3. Finch, Emily, Fafinski, Stefan (2017). Tort Law, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    4. Giliker, Paula (2017). Tort, London: Sweet & Maxwell.
    5. Harpwood, Vivienne (2000). Principles of Tort Law, London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
    6. Harpwood, Vivienne (2009). Modern Tort Law, Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish.
    7. Hedley, Steve, Padfield, Nicola (2011). Tort, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    8. Law Commission (1998). Liability for Psychiatric Illness (Law Com No 249).
    9. Law Commission (1995). Liability for Psychiatric Illness (Consultation Paper No 137).
    10. Martin, Elizabeth (2011). Oxford Dictionary of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    11. McBride, Nicholas J., Bagshaw, Roderick (2018). Tort Law, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    12. Murphy, John, Witting, Christian (2012). Street on Torts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    13. Quinn, Frances (2012). Tort Law, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited
    14. Scottish Law Commission (2002). Discussion Paper on Damages for Psychiatric Injury (Discussion Paper No 120).
    15. Steele, Jenny (2014). Tort Law: Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    16. Stephenson, Graham (2000). Sourcebook on Torts, Cavendish Publishing Limited.
    17. “How the Hillsborough disaster unfolded”, 26/4/2016, at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19545126>, last visited: 5/1/2022.
    18. “Galli-Atkinson v Seghal [2003] EWCA Civ 697”, n.d, at: <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff71760d03e7f57ea768b>, last visited: 3/10/2021.
    19. “Berisha v Stone Superstore Ltd”, n.d, at: <https://ipsaloquitur.com/tort-law/cases/berisha-v-stone-superstore/>, last visited: 8/11/2021.
    20. “Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310”, n.d, at: <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8cb60d03e7f57ecd7de>, last visited: 12/8/2021.
    21. “Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26”, n.d, at: <https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1994/26.html>, last visited: 8/11/2021.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 13, Issue 1
Spring & Summer 2022
June 2022
Pages 257-278

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics