What is your opinion on this... • Non-Gaming • General Non-gaming • Eurogamer.net

Deleted user 23 April 2009 18:09:34

Don't worry I'm not looking for any advice just wondering what the general consensus on this legal issue is. As it caused some debate at lunch time, and I'm meant to be finding ways to take it apart.
Here it is:

If A acts negligently towards B, and B suffers physical injury, A can be sued for damages. A can also be sued for any psychological damages (like nervous shock or depression) that results from the negligent act. Also, and this is where it starts to get a bit contentious, if B commits suicide because of this psychological damage, B's PR (wife or whatever) can sue A for this as well.

The reasoning is that the act caused the physical damage and mental damage which caused the depression (most common) which caused the suicide. There is a 'causal connection' between the negligent act and the suicide. But is it not safe to say that the suicide was ones own act, regardless of why he was feeling depressed.

What do you think of this? I'm probably the only one finding this interesting

But if this gets a response I will post the real problem (the one I'm having to beat) as well.

Articulate-Troll 23 Apr 2009 18:11:45 3,098 posts
Seen 11 months ago
Registered 14 years ago

I'm not very good at algebra

Deleted user 23 April 2009 18:13:35

FluffyTucker wrote:
Do your own homework

It's not homework! I just wanted to know what people thought. Should the person be able to sue someone because they 'caused' them to commit suicide.

speedofthepuma 23 Apr 2009 18:15:04 13,428 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years ago

You are asking if we think that it can be assumed that suicide is a direct cause of depression?

I would think that would be pretty provable in most cases.

sirtacos 23 Apr 2009 18:15:37 8,279 posts
Seen 4 months ago
Registered 14 years ago

It depends on what you define as negligence, if 'B' had a history of depression and suicidal thoughts, and if the 'negligence' was proportional to the response (suicide or whatever).

Generally though I don't like the 'psychological damage' shit - as if everyone was one spilled coffee away from an emotional breakdown.

JayeM 23 Apr 2009 18:16:51 3,384 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 15 years ago

Anyone who commits suicide should automatically forfeit all legal rights. Damn emos.

Deleted user 23 April 2009 18:17:39

So if someone is particularly susceptible to mental shock, should they get no/less damages if they commit suicide?

Deleted user 23 April 2009 18:21:23

Isn't this the eggshell principle? Where you take your victim as you find them. Bit difficult to prove that a suicide is the direct result of something that happened.

Khanivor 23 Apr 2009 18:21:46 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Killing one's self requires freewill. If you believe in freewill then it's no one's ultimate fault if someone kills themselves other than the person who did the checking out. A may be at fault for creating the conditions in which B topped themselves, but there are always other alternatives to suicide. It's a choice.

Timmy 23 Apr 2009 18:25:11 9,244 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 17 years ago

Khanivor wrote:
Killing one's self requires freewill. If you believe in freewill then it's no one's ultimate fault if someone kills themselves other than the person who did the checking out. A may be at fault for creating the conditions in which B topped themselves, but there are always other alternatives to suicide. It's a choice.

I agree with this.

speedofthepuma 23 Apr 2009 18:25:51 13,428 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years ago

This was what I wrote first:

If it is presumed that the depression is caused by the act, then if the act of suicide is caused by the depression then that is just as resultant from the original negligance.

I'm not sure if it makes sense.

I think there may be some naive views of suicide here. It is often a result of significant mental illness and as such it is very debatable whether that individual had "free will".

gohda 23 Apr 2009 18:26:20 6,638 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 14 years ago

It's not homework! I pawmiss!

Deleted user 23 April 2009 18:26:59

Yeah Talcum that has allot to do with it. And yeah I agree with you khani (god help me!), the reasoning in the courts is that to commit suicide you have to be in an impaired state of mental condition, which if caused by the negligence of A is added to the liability. The courts at present refuse to accept that someone can 'reasonably and logically' commit suicide.

BanjoMan 23 Apr 2009 18:28:20 13,692 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years ago

If it moves, shoot it. If it doesn't, fuck it. Or something like that. I forget exactly what my grandad's last words were, but it was along those lines.

Khanivor 23 Apr 2009 18:29:37 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

How are you going to determine if the act of suicide was purely the result of the negligence of A or was it down to the negligence of B carers?

Deleted user 23 April 2009 18:31:17

I would think it was more or less impossible to claim that a suicide was the direct result of one incident. Isn't this basically suggesting manslaughter?

speedofthepuma 23 Apr 2009 18:32:38 13,428 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years ago

Khanivor wrote:
How are you going to determine if the act of suicide was purely the result of the negligence of A or was it down to the negligence of B carers?

I can't comment on the nitty gritty, but the wording of the problem seems to suggest that someone can be sued if the depression is due to the negligence (equally difficult to prove I would think), therefore if the suicide is a result of the depression there presumably is a legally acceptable causal link.

Khanivor 23 Apr 2009 18:34:37 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Yeah, I would have thought it pretty damn hard to prove a case of depression was linked to one specific incident. Then proving that the depression was what caused the suicide, and not some other factor, would also be rather tricky.

Retroid Moderator 23 Apr 2009 18:56:49 45,464 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

mowgli wrote:
What is your opinion on this...

Ummm.... terracotta?

Deleted user 23 April 2009 19:03:33

Khanivor wrote:
Killing one's self requires freewill.

Not sure how this is seemingly self evident, personally. The rest of your hypothesis relies on this statement so how does it exactly require freewill?

xandoodle 23 Apr 2009 19:05:29 475 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 19 years ago

I don't think it's possible to prove depression as the result of negligence?

Red-Moose 23 Apr 2009 19:44:41 5,344 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

mowgli wrote:

Here it is:

If A acts negligently towards B, and B suffers physical injury, A can be sued for damages. A can also be sued for any psychological damages (like nervous shock or depression) that results from the negligent act. Also, and this is where it starts to get a bit contentious, if B commits suicide because of this psychological damage, B's PR (wife or whatever) can sue A for this as well.

The reasoning is that the act caused the physical damage and mental damage which caused the depression (most common) which caused the suicide. There is a 'causal connection' between the negligent act and the suicide. But is it not safe to say that the suicide was ones own act, regardless of why he was feeling depressed.

Suicide can be a feature of depression.
Depression may be the result of untreated PTSD
PTSD may result following any traumatic experience. (short timespan equivalents would be Adjustment Reaction).

However, you need to examine the time span (6 months for PTSD) and the trials of treatment the person had for depression. If they failed a series of treatments it may not be the negligent act that resulted in a suicide but rather the person's own lack of response for any other reason (including preexisting conditions).

Micro_Explosion 23 Apr 2009 19:51:45 9,692 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

Here. No reason why that wouldn't extend to physical harm as well.

Aren't you training as a lawyer, jungle boy?

Deleted user 23 April 2009 20:48:48

Micro_Explosion wrote:
Here. No reason why that wouldn't extend to physical harm as well.

Aren't you training as a lawyer, jungle boy?

Yeah. I don't need any advice on the issue really I was just curious as to what everyone felt about it. The issue I have to tackle and take apart (despite the law as it stands being completely against me is:
Taking into consideration the above, the law also states that

Say person A watches person B get run over and killed by C. A, if they suffer psychological harm, are considered as a 'secondary victim' and can claim damages from C for this harm.

Stretching the limits of common sense I believe but that is the law as it stands. What is a real pain in the tits, and what is the question I would really like to know your opinions on. A sort of yes or no as to whether you agree is:

If A (in the above case) after suffering psychological harm, despite not being involved in the negligent act, then goes on to commit suicide, his PR is able to sue C for this extra liability (his committing suicide).

Does anyone think this makes sense, or is it stretching your duty of care to unacceptable limits. It doesn't sit well with me personally. Oh and if you do agree with it, do you think the compensation awarded should be reduced/ or the claim dismissed if A was particularly susceptible to suffering mental harm?

Deleted user 23 April 2009 20:50:28

Sorry if this is all getting a bit to dense, and this is not a "/stealth do my homework for me thread" I just find it quite interesting.

gohda 23 Apr 2009 20:50:35 6,638 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 14 years ago

2A-3B^0.4=mowgli

speedofthepuma 23 Apr 2009 20:50:53 13,428 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years ago

It would depend entirely on the details, you've got all you're gonna get with A and B vagueness.

Deleted user 23 April 2009 20:55:40

What sort of details do you think would help?

BartonFink 23 Apr 2009 20:58:32 35,268 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 20 years ago

After reading this I can only come to one conclusion.
It's all mowgli's fault

/tops self

speedofthepuma 23 Apr 2009 20:58:42 13,428 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years ago

Ignore me, I didn't read your post properly.