Hambrook v Stokes Bros [1925] 1 KB 141

Facts

• A lorry owned by the defendants was left unattended with its engine running at the top of a steep, narrow street by their employee.
• The lorry rolled uncontrollably down the street due to the absence of adequate precautions.
• The claimant’s wife was walking with her children, had just parted from them at a bend, and then saw the lorry heading towards the area where she believed her children to be.
• She suffered severe nervous shock out of fear for their safety, leading to her death.
• The claimant, her husband, brought a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act for damages arising from the loss of his wife's services.
• The central issue was whether fear for the safety of another, rather than for oneself, could give rise to an actionable claim for psychiatric harm.

Issues

1. Whether damages for psychiatric injury are recoverable when the claimant’s shock arises from fear for the safety of a third party, not themselves.
2. Whether the duty of care in negligence extends to secondary victims who directly perceive a dangerous event caused by the defendant’s negligence.
3. Whether direct perception of the dangerous event is necessary for establishing causation in psychiatric harm claims.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that damages could be recovered for psychiatric injury resulting from fear for the safety of another, marking a departure from earlier case law that limited recovery to personal fear.
• It was determined that a duty of care may extend to secondary victims if the defendant could reasonably foresee psychiatric harm to someone witnessing their negligence and fearing for a close relative’s safety.
• The Court emphasized that such claims require direct perception of the incident by the claimant and a recognized psychiatric injury, not merely general emotional distress.
• Recovery was denied where the claimant’s shock stemmed from hearsay or reports after the event rather than direct perception.

Legal Principles

• A duty of care for psychiatric harm can exist for secondary victims if the claimant directly perceives the negligent event and suffers a recognized psychiatric injury.
• Reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric harm includes emotional distress to those witnessing danger to close relatives, not just those directly injured.
• Direct perception (visual or aural experience) of the harmful event is essential for establishing causation in claims for psychiatric injury.
• The scope of recovery is not unlimited and is restricted by proximity to the event and the immediate nature of the claimant’s fear.

Conclusion

Hambrook v Stokes Bros [1925] 1 KB 141 was significant in expanding negligence liability to cover psychiatric harm suffered by secondary victims who directly perceive a negligent act threatening a loved one. The decision established that recovery requires direct perception of the danger and a recognized psychiatric illness, significantly developing the law of nervous shock while maintaining necessary boundaries for liability.