z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Told Nervous Shock: Has the Pendulum Swung in Favour of Recovery by Television Viewers?
Author(s) -
Ramanan Rajendran
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
deakin law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1835-9264
pISSN - 1321-3660
DOI - 10.21153/dlr2004vol9no2art261
Subject(s) - legislature , shock (circulatory) , statutory law , law , project commissioning , high court , publishing , history , advertising , political science , medicine , business
‘Nervous shock’ was recognised as a recoverable form of injury in the early 1900s. Only recently however this form of injury has received extended coverage in the High Court of Australia and the legislature. Unfortunately, there are few clear guidelines, especially from the High Court judgments. This article discusses the implication of the recent decisions of Tame and Annetts and Gifford, as well as the history of ‘nervous shock’ and statutory developments. It seeks to clarify the approach of the High Court and the legislature in the area of nervous shock, especially as it relates to recovery for ‘nervous shock’ by viewers of distressing events on television.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here