Recovery of Damages for Mental Anguish Relating to Death Grief: the Jurisprudence of Certain Common Law Jurisdictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Courts in Common Law jurisdictions usually did not grant the recovery of damages for mental suffering unaccompanied with a physical injury or other wrong until the late 19th century. However, the given maxim changed when American courts allowed recovering damages for mental suffering in cases of improper delivery (or non-delivery) of telegraph messages, which primordially related to the death or serious illness of close relatives. English courts also recognized nervous shock to be recoverable in a handful of cases of the late 19th – early 20th century. In the several subsequent decades, the world of Common Law witnessed a multitude of cases, where the plaintiffs managed to recover damages caused by disinterment of graves, maltreatment of cadavers, negligence in burials and similar causes, where injury to feelings was connected with the demise of a close relative, or, as proposed by the author of the article, for the matter of brevity, death grief. In England, the recovery of damages for mental suffering from death grief was recognized by the judiciary in the case of Owens v. Liverpool Corp. (1938), which became one of paramount cases on recovery of damages for mental suffering relating to death grief, whereas there is a multitude of legal precedents of such recognition in the United States, and the key precedent upon this subject in Canada is the case of Mason v. Westside Cemeteries, Ltd. (1996). The article discusses English, American and Canadian cases, where the given topic is invoked.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".