1. NERVOUS SHOCK

2. Meaning It is a shock to the nerve and brain structures of the body
It is not a physical injury either by stick, bullet or sword but merely by what has been seen or heard.
E.g., injury through agitation caused by a false alarm or unlawful threats may result in a nervous breakdown or a mental shock which may injure the plaintiff for his ordinary activities.
It is a shock which arises from a reasonable fear to immediate personal injury to oneself

3. Nervous Shock
For a case under nervous shock, the plaintiff has to prove the following things: -
(i) Necessary chain of causation between 
nervous shock and the death or injury of one or more parties caused by the defendant's wrongful act;
(ii) Plaintiff is required to prove shock 
caused to him by seeing or hearing something. Physical injury is not necessary;
(iii) His proximity to the accident was sufficiently close in time and space.

4. Nervous Shock
Thus, a man who came up on a scene of serious accident for acting as a rescuer, when suffered a nervous shock, was allowed to claim the damages
In Wilkinson v. Downtown, (1897) 2 QB 57) the defendant by way of practical joke informed the plaintiff that her husband had broken his leg in an accident.
The plaintiff got a nervous shock and become seriously ill. The court held that the defendants were liable.

5. Nervous Shock
However, Lord Macmillan in Bourhill v. Young (1943 AC 92) observed in this regard that the law should take cognizance only of physical injury resulting from actual impact has been discarded, and it is now well recognized that an action will lie for injury by shock sustained through the medium of the eye or ear without direct contact.

6. Nervous Shock
In Hambrook v. Stokes Bros (1925) I KB 141), the defendant’s servant left a motor lorry at the top of a steep unattended, with the engine running.
The lorry by itself ran violently down the steep.
Mrs. Hambrook, plaintiff’s wife who had been walking up the street with her children had just parted with them a little below a point where the street made a bend, when she saw the lorry rushing round the bend towards her.
She became frightened for the safety of her children, who by that time were out of sight.
At that time she was told by a by-stander that her child had been injured.

7. Nervous Shock
In consequence of her fright and anxiety, she suffered a serious nervous shock which eventually caused her death.
The court held that the defendant would be liable only if the shock resulted from what she either saw or realized by her own senses, and not from something which someone told her.

8. Nervous Shock
In Bourhill v. Young, (1943 AC 92) an accident happened on the road by the collusion of a motorcyclist with a motor car, in which the motorcyclist died.
His blood stained body was lying on the road, when a pregnant woman who was at a distance from the site of the accident, came to see the incident & after seeing blood & dead body she suffered a nervous shock.
The court held that in such a situation, it could be stipulated by the wrongdoer that the victim may die & also any person standing on the spot may suffer nervous shock or even his family member may suffer.

9. Nervous Shock
But the fact that the woman standing at a distance may come to see the incident & thereupon will suffer a nervous shock could not be stipulated.
Defendant was held not liable
In King v. Phillips, (1952) 2 All ER 459) a small boy was on his tricycle in Bristall Road, London
A taxi driver backed his taxi into the small boy’s tricycle, but the injury to him was minor.
The child’s mother who was in her house some 70 to 80 yards away, heard the scream of the boy & looking out of the window, saw the tricycle under the taxi, but could not see the child who eventually ran home.

10. Nervous Shock
His mother suffered nervous shock followed by illness, for which she claimed damages
The Court of Appeal held that defendant owed a duty of care to the boy and not to the mother
There was no duty on the part of the driver to anticipate emotional shock to the mother who was away from the road.
Defendant was held not liable.

11. Nervous Shock
In Page v. Smith (1995 ) 2 All ER 736) (House of Lords case), the plaintiff, though directly involved in the motor accident remained physically unhurt but suffered a psychiatric illness.
The House of Lords held the defendant liable for damages and laid down the following important propositions: -
a) in cases involving nervous shock, it is essential to distinguish between the primary victims and secondary victims;
b) in claims of secondary victims, the law insists on certain control mechanisms, to limit the number of potential claimants;

12. Nervous Shock
Thus, defendant will not be liable unless the psychiatric injury/nervous shock is foreseeable in a person of normal health.
The control mechanism has no place where the plaintiff is a primary victim.
c) in claims of secondary victims, it may be legitimate to use hindsight/observation in order to be able to apply the test of reasonable foreseeability;
d) subject to the above, whether the defendant can reasonably foresee that his conduct will expose the plaintiff to the risk of personal physical injury or nervous shock?
If the answer is YES, then the duty of care is established, even though physical injury does not in fact occur.

13. Nervous Shock
e) the defendant who is under a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether primary or secondary victim, is not liable for damages for nervous shock unless the nervous shock results in some recognized psychiatric illness.
The tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him.
A mere bystander not in the vicinity of danger zone and who suffers injury by nervous shock cannot recover damages from the defendant.

14. THANK YOU Register with legaldesire.com to access more course material