Case Law Essay: Saadati v. Moorhead and Mental Injury Definition

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of the Canadian case law Saadati v. Moorhead, 2015 BCCA 393, focusing on the legal definition of mental injury within the context of negligence. The case involves a plaintiff who claimed psychological injuries resulting from car accidents, and the central issue revolves around whether such injuries must be confirmed by medical experts or can be determined by the trier-of-fact. The essay details the facts of the case, the arguments presented, and the court's decision, which emphasized the need for medical evidence to support claims of mental injury. The analysis highlights the importance of establishing a clear link between the accident and the psychological harm suffered, as well as the role of expert opinions in substantiating such claims. The essay also includes a bibliography citing the relevant legal documents and provides a clear understanding of the legal principles concerning mental injury and negligence.

Saadati v. Moorhead, 2015 BCCA
393
March 6
2020
Case Law

Law 1
SAADATI V. MOORHEAD, 2015 BCCA 393
Area of Law
Torts — Negligence —Mental injury
The main issue in this case was the issue of defining Mental Injury, specifically in the
situation where negligence is claimed and the way it is to be clearly determined in the court
of law. The major question here that needs to be tended to is that whether a mental injury is
something that is confirmed by a psychiatrist or as per the verdict of an expert witness from a
medical community or certain background or is it something that can be or needs to be
figured out by the trier-of-fact. This case law talks about the clear aspect revolving around the
way in which mental injury can be defined and also the aspect related to negligence that
needs to be applied.
Facts
In this case, the plaintiff here suffered a car accident when the tractor truck that he
had was struck by the defendant’s self –driven vehicle. Though the matter at hand was,
despite the fact that the appellant’s truck became damaged, he himself turned out to be not
uninjured anywhere. This was the accident that was second one that particularly the appellant
suffered out of the total five from the year 2003 to the year 2009. The appellant here sued the
so called respondents in the case who were the three involved parties in the first three
accidents. The claim here made was for the past income losses that incurred before the two
accidents in the last suffered as well as other non –pecuniary damages.
Issue
All the respondents here clearly admitted their fault with the accident, but refused to
admit that the appellant in any form suffered the damage, in front of the British Columbia
Supreme Court. After the trial, the judge declared that although the appellant was all fine and
did not face any physical injuries at that time, he faced psychological injuries that included
the cognitive difficulty as well as personality change. There was no physical injury per say,
but the appellant had suffered a lot of trauma and mental injury due to the accidents as per the
statements and testimonies of the appellant’s close ones as in his family and friends. Any sort
of judgement passed in a court, requires a proof, which the appellant here never provided.
The claim that was made was regarding the mental injury that was never agreed upon by
medical experts and hence, no documents regarding agreement with the same were released.
Decision
Later it was decided by the Appeal Court of British Columbia that, the appellant had
not been able to prove that the mental injury that he suffered was caused due to the accidents
neither was he able to prove that he suffered mental or psychological damage for that matter.
There were no clear documents proving his mental injury by any medically recognised
psychiatric or for that matter, the court could not just agree to the claim made by the appellant
here. According to the court, the said condition was valid only if a specific medical opinion
regarding agreement with the claim made was made by a medical practitioner, which was
never done (Supreme Court of Canda, 2020).

Law 2
Bibliography
Supreme Court of Canda. (2020). Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 543.
Retrieved March 6, 2020, from Canlii:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc28/2017scc28.html