@article{ref1,
title="Economic impact of Wicks v State Rail Authority (NSW) (2010) 84 ALJR 497",
journal="Journal of law and medicine",
year="2010",
author="Mendelson, Danuta and Torre, Andrew and D'Rosario, Michael",
volume="18",
number="2",
pages="221-238",
abstract="In Wicks v State Rail Authority (NSW) (2010) 84 ALJR 497 the High Court of Australia held that, among other things, plaintiffs (who establish that they suffer a recognised psychiatric illness as a result of the breach of duty of care owed to them by the defendant under s 32 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)) are entitled to recover damages for pure mental harm under s 30 if their psychiatric injury arose &quot;wholly or partly from&quot; a &quot;series of shocking experiences&quot; in the form of &quot;a sudden and disturbing impression on the mind and feelings&quot; in connection with witnessing at the scene &quot;another person ('the victim') being killed, injured or put in peril by the act or omission of the defendant&quot;. The High Court construed the phrase &quot;being ... injured or put in peril&quot; to include plaintiffs who suffer pure mental harm by witnessing at the scene another person being injured through the process of suffering pure mental harm in the form of psychiatric injury occasioned by the defendant's negligent act or omission. The Wicks decision raises the question whether the expanded liability of defendants for pure mental harm is economically sustainable.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1320-159X",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}