Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Later in 1991, the Court of Appeal dismissed all the claims on the ground that, apart from rescuers, only parents and spouses could claim and that ‘a perception through the broadcast of selective images accompanied by a commentary is not such as to satisfy the proximity test’. Ten claimants then appealed unsuccessfully to the House of Lords.

I'm guessing that only Definition 2 of such as applies here, so replace with it:

Later in 1991, the Court of Appeal dismissed all the claims on the ground that, apart from rescuers, only parents and spouses could claim and that ‘a perception through the broadcast of selective images accompanied by a commentary is not Of a kind that to satisfy the proximity test’.

Now, this (eg "...that to satisfy") sounds grammatically wrong? Did I perceive such as correctly?

Source: P94, How the Law Works, Gary Slapper

share|improve this question
1  
Such as is fine here, it's more of legalese. The use of such as implies "... a commentary is not one to satisfy the proximity test (not one that satisfies / not of a kind that satisfies )." –  Kris Jul 7 at 9:56
    
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about the interpretation of legalese, not English. –  tchrist Jul 7 at 18:17

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

You are looking at "such as" as if it were a two-word phrase that has (or should have) a particular meaning. It often is, but in this case it is not; "such" and "as" are independent actors on this stage, or, rather, semi-independent actors. An equivalent alternative reading would be

[...] 'a perception through the broadcast of selective images accompanied by a commentary is not [a harmful consequence of] such [a kind] as to satisfy the proximity test.'

In this case, that part of the ruling was that merely seeing the aftermath of a tragedy on television or in the newspapers did not make the Chief Constable liable for the psychological harm suffered by the people who may have seen it, whatever liability he may have had for any of the other consequences of his actions; that harm was insufficiently proximate in time, place and relationship to the actual (physically injured or killed) victims. Such, in this case, embodies both of the additions I made above.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.