MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1516445492

Responsabilité délictuelle et réparation du préjudice moral: où en est la common law canadienne? (Tort Liability and Psychiatric Injury: Overview of the Canadian Common Law (for a Civil Law Audience))

2002· article· fr· W1516445492 on OpenAlexaffabout
Louise Bélanger-Hardy

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrejudice (legal term)TortHarmLawCommon lawPolitical scienceLiabilityHumanitiesSociologyCriminologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En common law, le developpement des principes lies a la reparation du prejudice moral s'effectue tres progressivement. De nos jours, la maladie mentale etant peu a peu demystifiee, les tribunaux sont confrontes de plus en plus souvent a des demandes pour la reparation de ce type de prejudice. Guides surtout par le souci de ne pas elargir demesurement la responsabilite, les tribunaux formulent une serie de principes plutot restrictifs visant a contenir, pour le moment du moins, le nombre des reclamations. Le present article decrit et analyse les categories de situations ou la reparation du prejudice moral est possible en common law canadienne. Cette etude revele que la victime immediate d'un prejudice moral decoulant d'un prejudice corporel est mieux placee pour se faire indemniser que la victime indirecte qui subit seulement un prejudice moral. En bout de ligne, bien que des modifications aux regles de droit soient requises, l'auteure conclut que c'est l'attitude des tribunaux face au prejudice moral qui doit changer pour que la common law reponde mieux aux besoins des victimes. Common law courts have always shown restraint towards victims of psychiatric damage. Nowadays, as rapid and constant developments occur in the field of mental health, courts are more and more often faced with claims for compensation in respect of psychiatric harm. Guided by the ever-present need to limit liability for potential defendants, common law courts have formulated a series of restrictive rules meant to control the flow of litigation. The present article describes and analyses the categories of situations where damages for psychiatric injury may be recovered in Canadian common law. The study reveals that primary victims of psychiatric injury who have also suffered physical damages are much more likely to succeed than secondary victims who have suffered psychiatric damage only. Ultimately, although amendments in the law would be required, a change is needed first and foremost in the general attitude of common law courts towards victims of psychological harm in order to achieve more equitable results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207