The Plaintiff—A Psychological Study

THE particular type of plaintiff whose mental process I propose to consider to-night is the one which assumes that role consequent on personal injury sustained either in the course of employment or by the wrong-doing or misadventure of another, and as the result of which a genuine dispute arises as to the liability for, and the extent of, the injury sustained. Similar psychological phenomena may be observed in those who bring actions for libel, slander, malicious prosecution, breach of promise, and so on. In workmen's compensation cases the outstanding feature of the dispute is as to whether or not the individual is capable of resuming his former occupation. The assumption of the plaintiff's claim may be either more or less substantial, or so flimsy that it comes perilously near to fraud. Particular attention will be paid here to the first of these, although it must not be forgotten that many of the considerations to be dealt with also share in the genesis of fraudulent claims. Psychologists observe that the nature of a concept is controlled by the essential needs and experience of the individual. For instance, the concept of a piece of chalk may be to the geologist the cemetery of millions of animalcula; to the schoolmaster, a messy but useful aid to imparting knowledge; to the chemist, a carbonate of calcium. And so the concept of a wound may vary in individuals. In some, it is loss sustained; whilst in others-the plaintiff-it is the means of gain by obtaining pecuniary compensation, of which he is determined the measure shall be full, if not brimming o'er. Further, the mental outlook varies with the nature of the concept. For example, closely similar injuries attributable to like accidents present in those who make no claim for compensation a very different clinical picture