In English law, the principle of first locks was first mentioned in 1888[4] in Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas[5]. This case concerned a pregnant woman (the plaintiff) whose husband had been driving on a railway track at a railway crossing and, due to the negligence of the doorman, had almost been struck by a high-speed train. The applicant, Ms Coultas, suffered severe shock which resulted in memory and vision impairment and the loss of her unborn child. Nevertheless, the Privy Council concluded that it had no lasting right to damages, noting that: The Supreme Court has increasingly considered a certain type of argument: it should avoid decisions that would „open the floodgates of litigation.” Despite its frequent invocation, there has been little scientific research on what a locking argument actually means, and even less discussion of its normative basis. This article addresses both topics, revealing for the first time the scope and surprising variation of locking arguments, revealing their sometimes fragile foundations. Drawing on in-depth case studies in a wide range of areas, the article shows that locking arguments have primarily been used to protect three institutions: the coordinating branches of government, state courts, and federal courts themselves. In the first two cases, the Court`s desire to avoid flooding rests on autonomous constitutional principles and doctrines, including separation of powers and federalism, which confer prima facie legitimacy on these arguments. With respect to the latter instance, however, the Court relied solely on lock arguments to protect itself and the rest of the federal judiciary from what it considers to be an excessive workload, which raises difficult questions about the separation of powers and what steps the courts can take to ensure their ability to administer justice. The article concludes by arguing for a presumption against court-centric arguments, postulating that the court should rely on alternative mechanisms such as procedural rules and case-handling techniques to deal with new applications, rather than closing the doors of the courthouse to avoid them altogether.
Most situations in which courts have applied the lock argument have revolved around tort liability, particularly with respect to liability for nervous shock or purely economic loss. The justification for applying the lock-in principle may vary. In some cases, it is expressed as a limitation on when a defendant has a duty of care, in other cases, it is expressed as a limitation on the elimination of harm for which a defendant should be held liable. [2] In other cases, it is simply a principle of public policy. The leading authority in nervous shock cases in English law is now Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police,[6] a case heavily based on the lock-in principle. Lord Oliver limited the right to recovery to those who saw the accident or its immediate consequences: From: Opening the Floodgates in A Dictionary of Law » Supreme Court, Locks, Litigation, Jurisdiction, Prudentialism, Case Management If a party causes bodily harm to another person through their negligence, then the pool of claimants for that bodily injury is that person. However, if a person who suffers economic loss as a result of their injury is also able to bring a claim, the negligent party (and the courts) could potentially be the subject of various claims. If a party publishes negligent material in a document, if that document is widely distributed, if anyone who has read that statement would have the right to rely on it and claim damages caused by relying on it, there would also be an extremely broad liability for negligent misrepresentation.
The last, and probably the most difficult, area in which the principle of locking has been invoked concerns psychiatric injuries or „nervous shock”. To what extent should a person be held liable if they negligently injure someone and other people see the accident and suffer psychiatric injuries (but not physical harm) simply because they saw the accident? In attempting to answer these questions, courts have sometimes used the lock principle to limit the potential range of claims.