Dulieu v White [1901] 2 KB 669

Facts

• The claimant, Mrs. Dulieu, was pregnant and working behind the bar of her husband’s public house.
• A horse-drawn van, driven by the defendant’s servant, was negligently driven into the building.
• As a result of the incident, Mrs. Dulieu suffered severe nervous shock, which led to a miscarriage.
• It was also claimed that her child was born with an intellectual disability, though the court mainly considered her own injuries.
• The core question was whether a defendant may be liable for physical harm resulting from nervous shock caused by negligence, even in the absence of a direct physical impact.

Issues

1. Whether a duty of care in negligence extends to situations where mental shock, caused by negligence, results in physical injury.
2. Whether damages can be recovered for purely psychiatric injury that is not accompanied by immediate physical impact but leads to physical harm.
3. How proximate the relationship must be between the negligent act and the claimant’s injury for such a duty to arise.

Decision

• The court found in favour of Mrs. Dulieu, holding that a duty of care exists where negligent conduct causes mental shock that leads directly to physical injury.
• The judges distinguished between “mere fright,” which does not support a claim, and mental shock that manifests in actual physical harm.
• The requirement for a direct physical impact was rejected when psychiatric injury resulted in physical consequences.
• The reasoning included that where fright is a foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence and produces physical harm, a cause of action arises.
• Both Kennedy J and Phillimore J emphasised the importance of causation and a proximate link between negligence and the resulting injury.

Legal Principles

• A duty of care in negligence covers cases where psychological distress caused by another’s negligence results in physical injury.
• The need for a direct physical impact as a prerequisite for recovery was removed when psychiatric injury leads to physical consequences.
• Physical harm caused by mental shock induced by negligence is actionable if proximate and medically established.
• The case distinguished between fleeting emotional reactions and psychological trauma producing tangible harm.
• Proximity between the negligent act and the claimant’s injury remains essential.

Conclusion

Dulieu v White [1901] 2 KB 669 is a foundational case in tort law, establishing that a duty of care in negligence extends to cases where mental shock resulting from negligence causes physical harm, even in the absence of a direct physical impact. This principle has significantly shaped modern claims for psychiatric injury with physical consequences.