Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40

Facts

• Mrs. Hinz witnessed a car accident in which her husband was fatally injured and several of her children and children for whom she was responsible were harmed.
• The accident occurred during a family outing when the defendant’s car crashed into their parked vehicle.
• Mrs. Hinz did not suffer physical injury herself but witnessed the accident, its immediate aftermath, and the distress caused to her family.
• As a result of these events, Mrs. Hinz developed long-term 'morbid depression,' a recognized psychiatric illness.
• Her psychiatric harm arose directly from witnessing the scene, not from ongoing stressors.
• Mrs. Hinz brought a legal claim for compensation for psychiatric injury.
• The Court of Appeal considered the award of damages appropriate and declined to disturb the trial judge's determination.

Issues

1. Whether a duty of care could be owed to a person who suffers recognized psychiatric injury (but no physical injury) as a result of witnessing a traumatic event caused by another’s negligence.
2. Whether psychiatric harm such as 'morbid depression,' distinct from grief or sorrow, is compensatable in negligence claims.
3. Whether the defendant’s negligence made it reasonably foreseeable that psychiatric injury could be sustained by a secondary victim such as Mrs. Hinz.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal affirmed that Mrs. Hinz was entitled to compensation for her psychiatric injury.
• It was held that it was reasonably foreseeable that someone witnessing such a traumatic event might suffer psychiatric harm due to the defendant’s negligence.
• The judges distinguished between recognized psychiatric illness and ordinary non-clinical grief or sorrow, holding that only the former is compensatable.
• The court emphasized that the psychiatric harm suffered fell within the scope of what was reasonably foreseeable, imposing a duty of care.
• The award of damages for the psychiatric injury was upheld.

Legal Principles

• A duty of care can be extended to individuals who suffer recognized psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing a traumatic event, even if not physically injured.
• Compensation for psychiatric injury requires that the harm be a clinically recognized illness, not mere emotional distress.
• The law differentiates between primary victims (directly involved in the accident) and secondary victims (witnesses or bystanders), applying stricter criteria for the latter.
• For secondary victims to recover, the psychiatric harm must result from a sudden shock and satisfy additional requirements such as close ties of love and affection, direct perception of the event, and proximity in time and space.
• The consequences of negligence may include both physical and psychiatric harm if such harm is reasonably foreseeable.

Conclusion

Hinz v Berry established that secondary victims who suffer recognized psychiatric illness from witnessing traumatic events may claim for negligence, provided stringent criteria are met; this case remains central to the development of law concerning psychiatric injury in tort.