‘A Principled and Pragmatic Approach to Cases of Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Injury Based on Corrective Justice and Kantian Right’ Martin Alan James Allcock LLB(Hons)/BBSc Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Law Queensland University of Technology April 2018 1 Keywords Negligence – Australia Negligently inflicted psychiatric injury Personal injuries -- Australia Liability – Australia Corrective justice Interpretive legal theory 2 Abstract This thesis considers a particularly challenging area of law, namely, negligence involving pure psychiatric damage. The courts have traditionally struggled to find an approach to the duty of care in this area of law which is able to set clear rules of liability which are not arbitrary or unfair. This is primarily because of the intangible nature of the injury suffered, complexity of causal mechanisms involved, and limitations in relevant scientific knowledge. The courts have for these reasons commonly treated such claims with suspicion and have adopted strict controls on the ambit of liability. Underlying the fears expressed by the courts has been the view that it has been particularly difficult to develop principles of liability of general application which will not result in indeterminate liability and an opening of the floodgates of litigation. Orthodox understandings of this area of law suggest that there are two broad solutions to this problem. The first is a generalised test of reasonable foreseeability as the only duty test, advanced on the basis that this is a principled approach which does not set arbitrary and unjust rules of liability. Whilst having the advantage of flexibility, this approach risks leaving liability too wide. The second proposes clear and predictable rules of liability in addition to a test of reasonable foreseeability. This approach regards the imposition of arbitrary rules of liability as a regrettable necessity in order to ensure that the cause of action is kept within manageable limits. Importantly, orthodox understandings do not regard the ideals of principle and real- world manageability to be concurrently achievable. It is argued in this thesis that when applied to claims of negligently inflicted psychiatric injury, Ernest Weinrib’s and Allan Beever’s corrective justice theories of negligence suggest an approach to the duty of care which represents a distinct approach to the duty of care in this area of law. Being based solely on matters relevant to the interpersonal morality between the parties involved, this approach is based on principle. At the same time, this approach has the advantage of clarity and predictability, and is able to respond to fears of indeterminate liability, an opening of the floodgates of litigation, and an undue burden being placed on defendants. As such, this approach challenges orthodox understandings with respect to this area of law that principle on the one hand, and pragmatism on the other, are fundamentally inconsistent goals of the law. 3 It is further demonstrated in this thesis that this corrective justice approach is grounded in the institutional history of the common law in this area. This approach provides a basis to understand and explain each significant expansion of liability seen in this area of law between Dulieu v White & Sons (1900) and the current leading Australian common law cases of Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) and Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (2003). It is argued that not only is this approach consistent with the current common law position, but also that it represents an improvement on the current common law as it provides appropriate guidance for future applications of the law in novel situations. The civil liability legislation passed in the wake of Tame; Annetts and Gifford is also analysed from this perspective, and is shown to be arbitrary and unprincipled from this perspective. 4 Table of Contents Keywords ................................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 5 Statement of Original Authorship ............................................................................................ 10 Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................... 11 Publications .............................................................................................................................. 12 PART I INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Introduction to this thesis ............................................................................................. 13 1.2 The law with respect to negligently inflicted psychiatric injury: an apparent trade-off between principle and pragmatism............................................................................... 16 1.3 An approach to cases of negligently inflicted psychiatric injury which is both principled and pragmatic .............................................................................................. 27 1.3.1 Why a theory based on corrective justice? ....................................................... 29 1.3.2 Why Beever’s corrective justice theory? ......................................................... 31 1.4 Research hypothesis ..................................................................................................... 35 1.5 Selection of cases for analysis...................................................................................... 38 1.6 Framework of this thesis .............................................................................................. 41 1.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 43 PART II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2 WEINRIB’S AND BEEVER’S CORRECTIVE JUSTICE THEORIES OF NEGLIGENCE .......................................................................................................... 45 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 45 2.2 Beever’s principled approach to the law of negligence ............................................... 45 2.3 Implications for cases where the risk of particular injuries as a result of particular actions may not be appreciable in the general community ......................................... 57 2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 59 5 3 CRITIQUE AND DEFENCE OF WEINRIB’S AND BEEVER’S CORRECTIVE JUSTICE THEORIES ............................................................................................... 60 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 60 3.2 Common criticisms of Weinrib’s and Beever’s theories ............................................. 61 3.2.1 Theory does not reflect law as it actually exists – interpretive theory tautological .......................................................................................................................... 62 3.2.2 No meaningful distinction between principle and policy ................................. 66 3.2.3 Rights analysis ambiguous ............................................................................... 72 3.2.4 Rights analysis external to the law ................................................................... 74 3.2.5 Rights analysis not apolitical ............................................................................ 76 3.3 Disagreement about the conditions of legal validity – the argument from theoretical disagreement ................................................................................................................ 78 3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 82 4 AN APPROACH TO CASES OF NEGLIGENTLY INFLICTED PSYCHIATRIC INJURY WHICH IS BOTH PRINCIPLED AND PRAGMATIC ........................ 84 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 84 4.2 Existence of a right to psychological integrity ............................................................. 85 4.3 Normative limits of a right to psychological integrity ................................................. 90 4.3.1 The ability to appreciate risk ............................................................................ 93 4.3.1.1 Changes in brain physiology not necessarily ‘injuries’ ..................... 94 4.3.1.2 No unequivocal medical tests indicating cause ................................. 95 4.3.1.3 Range of responses to trauma ............................................................ 96 4.3.1.4 Causal explanations differ between disorders ................................... 98 4.3.1.5 A larger combined right to physical and psychological integrity ………….………………………………………………………….... 98 4.3.2 Common perceptions of risk relevant