MN10442 – topic 9 – nervous shocks
Negligence – nervous shock
- Medically recognised/diagnosed psychiatric illness
- Medical evidence
- No – grief, sad, upset, distressed
- E.g., PTSD, anxiety neurosis, OCD, clinical depression
- To amount in law to a ‘nervous shock’ the psychiatric damage suffered by the
claimant must extend beyond grief or emotional distress to a recognised mental
illness.
Primary victims
- Those physically injured in the event caused by D and also psychiatrically injured as a
result
- Those put in danger of physical injury to themselves but get psychiatrically injured
instead of physically injured
Page v smith [1995]
- The defendant must take the victim as he finds him.
- The claimant had suffered from ME (chronic fatigue syndrome) over a period of time
and was in recovery when he was involved in a minor car accident due to the
defendant's negligence. The claimant was not physically injured in the collision but
the incident triggered his ME and had become chronic and permanent so that he
was unable to return to his job as a teacher. He was successful at his trial and
awarded £162,000 in damages.
- Held: Provided some kind of personal injury was foreseeable it did not matter
whether the injury was physical or psychiatric. There was thus no need to establish
that psychiatric injury was foreseeable. Also, the fact that an ordinary person would
not have suffered the injury incurred by the claimant was irrelevant as the defendant
must take his victim as he finds him under the thin skull rule.
-
Secondary victims
- Those not put in physical danger but suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing
injury to others – very restrictive requirements
Bourhill v Young [1943]
- The claimant was a pregnant fishwife. She got off a tram and as she reached to get
her basket off the tram, the defendant drove his motorcycle past the tram at
excessive speed and collided with a car 50 feet away from where the claimant was
standing. The defendant was killed by the impact. The claimant heard the collision
but did not see it. A short time later, the claimant walked past where the incident
occurred. The body had been removed but there was a lot of blood on the road. The
claimant went into shock and her baby was stillborn. She brought a negligence claim
against the defendant's estate.
Negligence – nervous shock
- Medically recognised/diagnosed psychiatric illness
- Medical evidence
- No – grief, sad, upset, distressed
- E.g., PTSD, anxiety neurosis, OCD, clinical depression
- To amount in law to a ‘nervous shock’ the psychiatric damage suffered by the
claimant must extend beyond grief or emotional distress to a recognised mental
illness.
Primary victims
- Those physically injured in the event caused by D and also psychiatrically injured as a
result
- Those put in danger of physical injury to themselves but get psychiatrically injured
instead of physically injured
Page v smith [1995]
- The defendant must take the victim as he finds him.
- The claimant had suffered from ME (chronic fatigue syndrome) over a period of time
and was in recovery when he was involved in a minor car accident due to the
defendant's negligence. The claimant was not physically injured in the collision but
the incident triggered his ME and had become chronic and permanent so that he
was unable to return to his job as a teacher. He was successful at his trial and
awarded £162,000 in damages.
- Held: Provided some kind of personal injury was foreseeable it did not matter
whether the injury was physical or psychiatric. There was thus no need to establish
that psychiatric injury was foreseeable. Also, the fact that an ordinary person would
not have suffered the injury incurred by the claimant was irrelevant as the defendant
must take his victim as he finds him under the thin skull rule.
-
Secondary victims
- Those not put in physical danger but suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing
injury to others – very restrictive requirements
Bourhill v Young [1943]
- The claimant was a pregnant fishwife. She got off a tram and as she reached to get
her basket off the tram, the defendant drove his motorcycle past the tram at
excessive speed and collided with a car 50 feet away from where the claimant was
standing. The defendant was killed by the impact. The claimant heard the collision
but did not see it. A short time later, the claimant walked past where the incident
occurred. The body had been removed but there was a lot of blood on the road. The
claimant went into shock and her baby was stillborn. She brought a negligence claim
against the defendant's estate.
