header-logo header-logo

22 October 2009 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7390 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Casualties of war

Richard Scorer examines a hidden epidemic suffered by British soldiers

The possibilities for civil compensation for soldiers suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are currently bedevilled by several legal limitations.

The first is “combat immunity”: while the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has a duty of care as employer of soldiers, no such duty arises in battlefield situations. A soldier does not owe a fellow soldier a duty of care in tort when engaged with an enemy in the course of combat. The MoD is not under a duty at common law to maintain a safe system of work for service personnel engaged in combat.

“Combat” has an extended meaning, and covers all active operations against the enemy: attack and resistance, advance and retreat, pursuit and avoidance, reconnaissance and engagement. Due to combat immunity, a claim cannot be brought against the MoD simply because a serviceman or woman suffers PTSD as a result of combat experiences.

The claimant has to identify a negligent failure on the part of his employers to diagnose and treat

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll