Nervous shock in torts law refers to psychological harm or emotional distress sustained by an individual as a result of negligence or intentional actions of the other party. In order to claim compensation for nervous shock there are certain legal elements that must be proven. The essential elements may vary across jurisdictions, there are generally consistent legal principles governing such claims. Several landmark judgements have transformed this legal landscape highlighting important principles like foreseeability and proximity to ensure fair application. Explore other important judiciary notes.

Understanding Nervous Shock in torts

Nervous shock in torts law refers to a psychological injury or mental illness caused by intentional, negligent, or reckless acts or omissions of the other party. It typically originates when an individual experiences a legitimate fear of imminent personal harm. This condition often develops as a result of witnessing a distressing event such as a serious accident involving a close family member or spouse.

Although the term “nervous shock” has been condemned for being outdated and somewhat misleading, it remains a commonly used phrase to describe this legal concept. In English law, strict limitations exist on the compensation that can be awarded for nervous shock, particularly when the claim is based on negligence.

Development of Nervous Shock in Torts

The legal structure governing nervous shock in torts law has evolved over a significant period of time. The Courts have widened the scope of such claims and extended recognition beyond instances of immediate shock. Earlier there was judicial reluctance to acknowledge claims based on psychiatric injury due to concerns about fraudulent or exaggerated mental health claims.

The main issue in nervous shock cases is proving the link between the defendant’s conduct and the psychological harm suffered by the plaintiff. Establishing this connection is crucial for a claim to succeed.

Ingredients for a Nervous Shock Claim in Torts

The Common law has provided the following important elements for analysing the legality of nervous shock claim-

• Duty of Care: The defendant must have owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care and required them to act reasonably and avoid causing harm.
• Foreseeability of Psychological Harm: The risk of the plaintiff suffering psychological injury must have been reasonably foreseeable. In other words, a reasonable person in the defendant’s position should have anticipated the potential for such harm.
• Causation: There must be a direct causal relationship between the defendant’s negligent act or omission and the plaintiff’s psychological injury. The plaintiff must provide evidence linking their condition to the defendant’s actions.

Examples of Nervous Shock in Torts

• Witnessing a Loved One’s Death – A mother sees her child die in a car accident caused by negligence and develops PTSD.
• Bystander Trauma – A pedestrian witnesses a gruesome accident and suffers severe anxiety.
• Medical Negligence – A patient is wrongly informed they have a terminal illness, leading to extreme emotional distress.
• Workplace Trauma – An employee sees colleagues injured in an industrial accident due to employer negligence and develops psychological harm.
• Handling a Decomposed Body – A funeral worker suffers severe distress after being given an improperly stored body.

A nervous shock claim in tort can be pursued by an individual diagnosed with a recognized mental illness resulting from an event that the defendant should have reasonably foreseen as capable of causing such harm to a person of ordinary resilience if due care was not exercised.

Alongside the directly affected individual, certain close family members of the victim may also be eligible to file a claim. These relatives include:

• A parent of the victim
• Individuals who act as parents to the victim
• The victim’s spouse or domestic partner
• The victim’s child or stepchild
• Anyone for whom the victim serves as a parental figure

The term “close relatives” also extends to siblings, half-siblings, step-siblings, and stepchildren. In this context, a spouse, husband, wife, or de facto partner is categorized as a “spouse or partner.” These individuals may be entitled to bring a claim if they meet the necessary legal requirements.

Nervous Shock in Torts Case Law

The term nervous shock has been transformed through various judgments and shaped the areas of claims for psychiatric damages. The Courts have acknowledged factors like foreseeability, proximity and the nature of distress. The following are some landmark judgements that have helped in the evolution of nervous shock claims in tort law:

Bourhill v. Young

A pregnant woman heard the distant sound of a motorcycle accident after stepping off a tram. She later approached the accident site, saw blood on the road, and suffered a miscarriage due to emotional distress. The House of Lords ruled that she was not a "foreseeable claimant" since she had no direct connection to the accident. This case set limits on who can bring a claim for nervous shock.

McLoughlin v. O’Brian

The plaintiff did not witness an accident but suffered extreme distress upon learning about it and seeing the aftermath. The House of Lords held the defendants liable, expanding the scope of nervous shock claims to include those who arrive at the scene shortly after an accident. Lord Wilberforce introduced three key factors for determining liability:

1. The relationship between the claimant and the victim.
2. The claimant’s proximity to the accident.
3. The way the mental shock was caused.

Jose Philip Mamphilly v. Premier Automobile Limited

The plaintiff purchased a defective car and suffered significant mental distress. The manufacturer denied liability, arguing that the issue was trivial. The Court adjudicated in favor of the Plaintiff and awarded him compensation for mental anguish due to defective product.

Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta

The Plaintiff in this case was promised a flat but faced continuous delays, leading to emotional distress. The Court granted compensation and considered the significance of safeguarding the consumers from mental agony.

Ghaziabad Development Authority v. UOI

The Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India case held that compensation for mental anguish was not applicable, as the claim was based on contractual terms under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 rather than tort law.

The term nervous shock in torts law has evolved to accommodate psychological injuries and ensuring necessary restrictions. The Courts have established key principles such as foreseeability, proximity, and causation to ensure fair application of claims. While the law acknowledges the legitimacy of psychiatric harm, it continues to balance protection for genuine victims with safeguards against speculative claims. As societal understanding of mental health advances, further refinements may shape the future of nervous shock claims.

Download Key take aways on Nervous Shock in Torts PDF