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
- Whether damages for psychiatric injury are recoverable when the claimant’s shock arises from fear for the safety of a third party, not themselves.
- Whether the duty of care in negligence extends to secondary victims who directly perceive a dangerous event caused by the defendant’s negligence.
- 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.
