## Facts

- The defendant, Mr. Downton, informed the claimant, Mrs. Wilkinson, that her husband had suffered a serious accident and was at a local public house with broken legs.
- This statement was entirely false and made as a practical joke, with the intent that Mrs. Wilkinson believe it to be true.
- As a direct result, Mrs. Wilkinson experienced severe emotional distress and nervous shock, which led to physical illness requiring weeks of recovery.
- Mrs. Wilkinson had no prior predisposition to nervous shock.
- The harm suffered was not due to direct physical contact but arose from the deliberate deception of the defendant.

## Issues

1. Whether a person can be liable for intentionally causing physical or psychiatric harm through false statements without physical contact.
2. Whether intent to cause harm can be imputed where there is deliberate deception and foreseeable harm.
3. The extent to which this tort differs from other torts such as assault, battery, negligence, and defamation.
4. What limitations apply to claims based on this principle.

## Decision

- The court found Mr. Downton liable for the physical harm suffered by Mrs. Wilkinson, even in the absence of physical contact.
- It was held that the defendant's deliberate false statement, made with the intention it be believed and knowledge it was likely to cause harm, was actionable when actual psychiatric or physical injury resulted.
- The intention to cause harm could be imputed in law due to the defendant's conduct and the foreseeability of the distress caused.
- The court found that the resulting physical harm was not too remote a consequence of the defendant’s falsehood.
- Subsequent case law, including _Janvier v Sweeney_ and _Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust_, affirmed and clarified the need for actual physical or psychiatric injury and proof of intention to cause such harm.

## Legal Principles

- Liability may arise for intentional infliction of physical or psychiatric harm through false statements, even where there is no physical contact.
- The tort requires (1) a deliberate false statement intended to be believed, (2) knowledge that harm is likely, and (3) resultant physical or psychiatric injury.
- The principle is distinct from assault, battery, defamation, or negligence, focusing on intentional and causative deception.
- Actual physical or psychiatric injury is required; mere emotional distress is not sufficient.
- Intention may be imputed in law when harm is a foreseeable result of the defendant’s calculated act.
- Later cases confirm that the threshold for liability is high, with a need for clear evidence of intent and actual harm.

## Conclusion

_Wilkinson v Downton_ established a distinct tort for intentional infliction of physical or psychiatric harm by means of deliberate falsehood, requiring both intent to deceive and proof that such conduct caused actual injury. This principle applies beyond practical jokes to any deliberate act of deception resulting in recognized harm, but modern interpretation restricts liability to situations involving demonstrable intent and actual injury.


Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57