# data[].attributes.body
eople are expected to owe a duty of care to people they have never met. This was seen in the Giffor

# data[].attributes.body
“more difficult to prove mental harm then it is to prove physical harm”

# data[].attributes.body
Inconsistency as it's impossible to fully measure ones mental health

# data[].attributes.body
The idea that psychiatric damage is less serious that physical damage

# data[].attributes.body
difficulties of proof

# data[].attributes.body
Difficult to measure the extent of a psychiatric injury compared to a physical injury

# data[].attributes.body
psychiatric injury can not always be proven and can be exaggerated to seem more extreme

# data[].attributes.body
Its hard to prove psychiatric injuries especially when the plaintiff had a psychiatric injury previous to the negligent act Spence v Percy

# data[].attributes.body
So many more people are now liable for a lot more than just a physical injury

# data[].attributes.body
Employers now owe their employees children and spouses a duty of care, as established Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Limited [2003]. This opens businesses up to more claims of nervous shock

# data[].attributes.body
Plaintiff's may bring 'imaginary' or 'fabricated claims'

# data[].attributes.body
Expands the proximity of relationships between individuals/workplaces

# data[].attributes.headline
People are expected to owe a duty of care to people they have never met. This was seen in the Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Limited [2003] HCA 33 where the children made a claim for nervous shock. This widens that employees owe a duty of care to family members of their staff. This is also seen in Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 where it is too far fetched for the driver to owe a duty of care to a person not in proximity or to people they have never met. 

# data[].attributes.subject
People are expected to owe a duty of care to people they have never met. This was seen in the Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Limited [2003] HCA 33 where the children made a claim for nervous shock. This widens that employees owe a duty of care to family members of their staff. This is also seen in Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 where it is too far fetched for the driver to owe a duty of care to a person not in proximity or to people they have never met. 

# data[].attributes.body
All judges have different thoughts and decisions

# data[].attributes.body
Can exaggerate a psychiatric injury/ mental harm

# data[].attributes.body
Inconsistent case outcomes

# data[].attributes.body
Can fake psychiatric injury