Different attitude to physical harm then there is for mental harm.

Physical harm:
Within negligence:

i. Dryden-actionable damage defined in Darnley, as: “a physical change making the

sufferer appreciably worse off in terms of their health or capability, even if that
change was hidden and symptomless.” <- appetite for playing with boundaries for
physical interests.

ii. Rothwell- Question of whether the symptomless plaques were, in and of themselves,
a form of actionable damage. Held: must be pain + immediate consequence

Difference: in Dryden had an effect on the claimants physical functioning, whereas in Rothwell it did
not. In Dryden, the change experienced by the claimants, led to the loss of their capacity to continue
working in the red zones [47] and so they were appreciably worse off. In Rothwell, the pleural
placques suffered increased the claimants chance of developing an illness in the future, but did not
have an effect on the claimants health or way of life at the time of the trial.

Mental harm:
See PI notes

Mental harm