Back Injury in UK Law

A doctor is obliged to act in the best interests of his patient. The best interests of a child and his parent normally march hand-in-hand. But when considering whether something does not feel 'quite right', a doctor must be able to act single-mindedly in the interests of the child. He ought not to have at the back of his mind an awareness that if his doubts about intentional injury or sexual abuse prove unfounded he may be exposed to claims by a distressed parent.

It is a non sequitur to say that because an employer is under a duty to an employee not to cause him physical injury, the employer should as a necessary consequence of that duty (of which there is no breach) be under a duty not to cause the employee psychiatric injury: see Hilson, Nervous Shock and Categorization of Victims, [1998] Tort L.R. 37, at 42. The rules to be applied when an employee brings an action against his employer for harm suffered at his workplace are the rules of tort.

The second part requires one, as I think, to ask the question: Was the load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to the particular person concerned? The reference to "him" at the end of the sub-section in my judgment clearly directs attention to the particular employee that one is considering at any particular time. In my opinion, one has to approach the construction of this sub-section, and the meaning of its provisions, giving the words used their ordinary and natural English meaning.

This construction of the phrase is, I think, one which not only accords with the natural meaning of the words according to ordinary English usage, but also with what may be presumed to have been the intention of Parliament. However, fortunately for them, as well as for their employers, the mere fact that a particular job may involve some lifting operations does not necessarily render them unemployable for such purposes.

The crude view that the law should take cognizance only of physical injury resulting from actual impact has been discarded, and it is now well recognised that an action will lie for injury by shock sustained through the medium of the eye or the ear without direct contact. But in the case of mental shock there are elements of greater subtlety than in the case of an ordinary physical injury and these elements may give rise to debate as to the precise scope of legal liability.

Beyond this, however, the law in general provides no remedy, however severe the consequences of the distress or grief may be to the health or well-being of the third party and however close his relationship to the victim.

These passages lead to the reflection that it is possible that every mental illness may, in time, be shown to be accompanied by and consequent upon some change to the physical structure of the body, so that mental illness can properly be described as a type of physical injury.