Critical Appraisal of the Civil Responsibility of the Insane Person Vis- A Vis Third Party Liability

Abstract

The issue of non-responsibility for crime because of mental disorder has resulted in a series of judicial decisions. Conversely, the subject of non-responsibility for civil wrongs and thirdparty liabilitiesto the mentally ill have received little attention. Jurisprudence examining the impact of impaired reasoning on legal liability has centered on criminal liability rather than civil liability. This article x-rays the fate of the mentally ill person in tort law under the defence of the insanity. It presents reasons advanced for the application of the “reasonable man” objective standard in determining the civil responsibility of insane persons. It recommends however that a more liberal rule should be provided in tort law to give the insane some sort of leverage bearing in mind that, since they are not in control of their acts, they are not at fault and consequently should not be held liable. This article critically examined the liability of third parties to the mentally ill person.It presents divergent opinions of legal scholars and judicial decisions on the subject. It concludes that unlike the criminal, law of tort does not recognize mental illness in the defence of insanity and that the decision to declare liability or otherwise of third parties to the mentally ill person is at the discretion of the courts, depending on the circumstances of each case.