Why are courts reluctant to award damages when a plaintiff has suffered emotional injuries but not physical
Question:
Why are courts reluctant to award damages when a plaintiff has suffered emotional injuries but not physical injuries?
a. Why are damages from mental suffering considered parasitic?
b. In what situations are courts more likely to bypass the physical harm requirement?
c. What is the “impact” rule?
d. Why have some courts abandoned the physical-harm requirement?
e. How do courts deal with plaintiffs who witness injury to others?
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Step by Step Answer:
a Damages for mental suffering are often regarded as parasitic because theyre usually secondary or dependent on more tangible forms of harm such as ph...View the full answer
Answered By
Charles mwangi
I am a postgraduate in chemistry (Industrial chemistry with management),with writing experience for more than 3 years.I have specialized in content development,questions,term papers and assignments.Majoring in chemistry,information science,management,human resource management,accounting,business law,marketing,psychology,excl expert ,education and engineering.I have tutored in other different platforms where my DNA includes three key aspects i.e,quality papers,timely and free from any academic malpractices.I frequently engage clients in each and every step to ensure quality service delivery.This is to ensure sustainability of the tutoring aspects as well as the credibility of the platform.
2+ Reviews
10+ Question Solved
Related Book For 
Question Posted:
