法律英语词汇“Nervous shock”的翻译、意思、用法、释义-法律词典

单词	Nervous shock
释义	精神打擊 The sudden sensory perception (ie the seeing, hearing, or touching) of a person, thing, or event so distressing that it causes a plaintiff to suffer a recognisable psychiatric illness. Shock in the sense of psychiatric damage which is owed to those foreseeably and directly involved in the horrific event caused by the defendant’s negligence: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, [1991] 4 All ER 907 (HL); Wong Yiu Ming v To Chark Wah [1993] 1 HKC 510 (DC). Thus a plaintiff suffering shock through involuntary participation in the event itself (Wong Yiu Ming v To Chark Wah, supra), through attempting to rescue the victims (Chadwick v British Transport Commission [1967] 2 All ER 945, 1 WLR 912; McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 1, 1 Lloyd’s Rep 16 (CA)), or through fear for his own safety in the face of the event (Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669), may recover damages. The plaintiff must suffer the shock as a result of what he perceived through his own senses: Boardman v Sanderson [1964] 1 WLR 1317 (CA). Suffering shock through being told of the events by a third party or seeing them on television is not sufficient: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, supra. There must be a close physical and temporal proximity between the plaintiff and the shocking events. Witnessing the injuries and distress of victims in hospital in the immediate aftermath of an accident may suffice, but seeing a corpse hours later will not: McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410, [1982] 2 All ER 298 (HL). There must generally be a close emotional tie between the plaintiff and the victims of the accident: Attia v British Gas plc [1988] QB 304, [1987] 3 All ER 455 (CA). Recovery has generally been limited to situations where the defendant’s negligent conduct has resulted in illness through a sudden assault on the plaintiff’s mind rather than by an accumulation of feelings or distress: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, supra. The courts will not allow recovery in a nervous shock case as they do in other negligence cases unless it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care: Greatorex v Greatorex (The Times, 6 June 2000, unreported). See also Duty of care; Negligence; Reasonable foreseeability; Remoteness. 對某人、某件東西或事情，在感情上有突如其來的認知（即是看、聽或接觸），而以上的事物使原訴人痛苦至蒙受可辨認精神病的傷害。因被告人的疏忽所引致的殘酷事件而可預見及直接地涉及引致精神損害的打擊：Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, [1991] 4 All ER 907 (上議院)；Wong Yiu Ming v To Chark Wah [1993] 1 HKC 510（區域法院）。因此，原訴人通過非自願性參與某件事件(Wong Yiu Ming v To Chark Wah, 見上文)、通過企圖拯救受害者(Chadwick v British Transport Commission [1967] 2 All ER 945, 1 WLR 912; McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 1, 1 Lloyd’s Rep 16 (芵國上訴法院))或通過在面對某事件時對自身安全的恐懼而蒙受的打擊，皆可追討損害賠償。原訴人必須因透過自身官能的認知而引致蒙受打擊：Boardman v Sanderson [1964] 1 WLR 1317 (芵國上訴法院)。如透過第三方將事件告訴原訴人或在電視上看到事件的發生，亦不足夠：Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, 見上文。在原訴人與打擊事件之間在身體上或實質上必須極度接近。在意外發生後立即在醫院見證受害者的受傷及痛苦已足夠，但幾小時後見到屍體即不足夠：McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410, [1982] 2 All ER 298 (上議院)。概括而言，在原訴人與意外的受害者之間必須有緊密的情緒聯繫：Attia v British Gas plc [1988] QB 304, [1987] 3 All ER 455 (芵國上訴法院)。追討賠償一般是限制於被告人的疏忽行為對原訴人的神志透過突然襲擊而造成疾病，而不是感覺或痛苦的累積：Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, 見上文。法庭不允許就精神打擊的案件如其他疏忽案件作出追討賠償，除非施加的謹慎責任是公正、公平而合理的，則屬例外：Greatorex v Greatorex （《時代日報》2000年6月6日，未經彙報）。另見 Duty of care; Negligence; Reasonable foreseeability; Remoteness。
随便看	Thereafter Thereby Therefor Therefore Therefrom Therein Thereinafter Thereinbefore Thereof Thereto Theretofore Thereunto Thereupon Therewith Thermonuclear fusion Things dangerous in themselves Thin skulled person Third party Third party cheque Third party discovery Third party insurance Third party mortgage Third party motor vehicle insurance Third party notice Threat

法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。