Allcock Martin
Lecturer, School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University.
PhD Candidate (Queensland University of Technology).
J Law Med. 2018 Apr;25(3):814-836.
Despite the enactment of civil liability legislation affecting claims for pure mental harm in many jurisdictions in Australia, the High Court decision in Wicks v State Rail Authority (NSW) (2010) 241 CLR 60; [2010] HCA 22 has caused some concern that the economic goals underpinning the civil liability legislation will be threatened. In this article, the economic sustainability of the law of negligence with respect to pure mental harm is considered in light of three particular issues. The first is the High Court's 2015 decision in King v Philcox (2015) 255 CLR 304; [2015] HCA 19 in which the South Australian civil liability legislation was considered. The second is the threat to healthy insurance markets posed by the civil liability legislation itself as a result of inconsistencies between jurisdictions. The third relates to the threat posed by the civil liability legislation to the ability of the law of negligence to achieve economically efficient levels of accident and accident-prevention costs. It is argued that the civil liability legislation is not only not well-suited to achieve its primary goal of reducing the social costs of accidents, but may well be a greater threat to that goal than the common law.
尽管澳大利亚许多司法管辖区都颁布了影响纯精神损害索赔的民事责任立法，但澳大利亚高等法院在威克斯诉新南威尔士州铁路管理局案（2010年）（241 CLR 60；[2010] HCA 22）中的判决引发了一些担忧，即支撑民事责任立法的经济目标将受到威胁。在本文中，从三个特定问题的角度审视了关于纯精神损害的过失侵权法的经济可持续性。第一个问题是高等法院2015年在金诉菲尔科克斯案（2015年）（255 CLR 304；[2015] HCA 19）中的判决，该案对南澳大利亚州的民事责任立法进行了审议。第二个问题是，由于各司法管辖区之间的不一致，民事责任立法本身对健康保险市场构成的威胁。第三个问题涉及民事责任立法对过失侵权法实现经济有效水平的事故及事故预防成本能力构成的威胁。有人认为，民事责任立法不仅不太适合实现其降低事故社会成本的首要目标，而且对该目标的威胁可能比普通法更大。
