## Facts

- The plaintiff’s husband was away from home.
- The defendant, as a practical joke, told the plaintiff with apparent seriousness that her husband had been badly injured in an accident, had both legs broken, and required her immediate attendance.
- The statement was entirely false and was intended to be believed and acted upon.
- The plaintiff suffered severe nervous shock and physical illness, including vomiting and prolonged incapacity, with serious lasting effects.
- The evidence indicated the plaintiff’s condition was not attributable to prior ill-health or special susceptibility.
- The plaintiff also incurred a small out-of-pocket expense (1s. 10½d) in reliance on the false message.
- The plaintiff sued in tort seeking damages for illness and suffering and reimbursement of the reliance expense.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff could recover the reliance expense as pecuniary loss caused by the defendant’s deliberate false statement intended to be acted upon.
2. Whether the plaintiff could recover damages for physical illness caused by nervous shock where the defendant’s conduct was a wilful deception, absent battery or common-law assault.

## Decision

- The court awarded the plaintiff the reliance expense (1s. 10½d) as loss caused by an actionable fraudulent misrepresentation intended to be acted upon and in fact relied upon.
- The court awarded the plaintiff £100 for physical illness and suffering caused by nervous shock.
- The court held liability could exist without physical contact and without the plaintiff’s apprehension of immediate violence.
- The court treated the defendant’s conduct as a wilful wrongful act infringing the plaintiff’s right to personal safety, where the act was calculated to cause physical harm and did in fact cause such harm.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant commits an actionable wrong by wilfully doing an act calculated to cause physical harm to the claimant, which in fact causes physical harm; illness resulting from nervous shock can constitute the required physical harm.
- Where a false statement is made deliberately, intended to be acted upon, and is acted upon to the claimant’s detriment, resulting pecuniary loss is recoverable.
- Lack of battery (no touching) and lack of assault (no apprehension of immediate violence) do not preclude liability for a wilful act causing physical injury through mental shock.
- The requisite intention may be imputed where the act is plainly likely to produce grave effects; it is not a defense that the extent of harm exceeded what was specifically anticipated.

## Conclusion

The court held the defendant liable for both the plaintiff’s reliance-based expense and for physical illness caused by nervous shock, recognizing that a deliberate, serious deception calculated to cause physical harm can found tort liability even without contact or immediate threat.


Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 Q.B. 57 (Q.B.)