The basis of tort law is to vest certain obligations or, in other words, duties on the persons individually. The wrongful act is said to be committed once this obligation or the duty has been breached by the party on whom the same is vested. In order to get a clear view of what tort is, let us look into the definition provided by Winfield. According to him,
“Tortious Liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law; this duty is towards persons generally, and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages”.
This article will look into one of the recognized areas in the law of torts, which are not done through a breach of obligation or, in other words, they go a little further from the ordinary stand of tort law and impose liability if the same is committed. This article will look into what does nervous shock mean and a few important cases laws laid down by various courts to understand the development of nervous shock in tort law.
What does Nervous shock mean?
Before looking into the meaning and the cases laid down in this field, it is important to understand the background as to why this field of law has evolved over the course of time. Earlier, it has been noted that courts have been reluctant way to reject the claims that were brought before them. This was because nervous shocks are more related to mental attitudes and mental stability. Since this is not identifiable through naked eyes, the judges were reluctant to provide damages to those victims. But, what exactly do we mean by nervous shock? As per R.K. Bankia’s commentary on The Law of torts, the nervous shock would act result in providing relief when any person has been affected not through physical injuries or by its impact, rather by mere nervous shock through anything which is seen or heard. With the development of scientific standards, this was made to be believed by the judges, and then these courts started believing that nervous shock actually exists as a mental illness.
Early Cases and Interpretations:
In the initial days of interpretation, it was observed that nervous shock was a form of physical injury caused by the sudden state of mind, and this was mostly considered because of the cases that came before these courts. This means that cases involved physical damages such as miscarriage of child by mother as a result of shock. These instances made the interpretation to be wider. Let us look into a few of the cases where these interpretations were made.
In the case of Wilkinson v. Downton case in 1897, the defendant told a false statement as part of a joke to the plaintiff that her husband had lost his two legs in an accident. This basically shocked the plaintiff, and she was seriously ill due to the same. The court held the defendant liable for this wrongful act.
The same decision was upheld in another case of Janvier v. Seveeny in the year 1901.
In the case of Dulieu v. White (1901), the plaintiff, who was the wife of a publican, got a nervous shock due to a severe fear when a van which was drawn by the horse had crashed into the window where she was working and cleaning the glasses. Due to this sudden fright, the wife, who was pregnant at that time, gave birth to a premature baby after the accident. In this case, Justice Kennedy gave a new rule for limiting the liability in case of nervous shock, and this became famous in the name of Kennedy Limitation. As per him, the shock should arise from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to one person.
A shift in Interpretation of Nervous Shock:
Having seen the above interpretation, it is now important to know how these areas of the law of tort have evolved over the period of time. The principle of impact theory was used as part of emergence in cases involving nervous shock in the recent decades, unlike the earlier physical and mental illness. According to Hardwood, a new theory emerged which looked into the aspect of foreseeability of the impact that would cause to the claimant. He meant that, as per this theory, the damages should be given to those claimants if he or she is within the prescribed area, which will be helpful to foresee the impact that it causes. This means that the claimant or the person who suffers the damage should be geographically closer to the occurrence of risk or the wrongful act.
This principle has been employed in many cases which later came before the courts of law in relation to Nervous Shock. Let us look into those cases.
In the case of Bourhill v. Young in the year 1943, where the plaintiff was not near to the serious accident that took place 50 yards away from her, and she was on the other side of the road, and the same was not in the line of her vision. Later, she walked near the accident area, and when she saw the occurrence of such an accident, she got a nervous illness and the shock which resulted from her giving birth to a still-born child as soon as she got affected. She later claimed for the tort of nervous shock, which was basically rejected by the court of law. It is important for us to look into the reason for which her claim was affected and how the theory was applied in this particular case. Three judges, in this case, opined that the claimant was not within the geographical limit of impact. It was noted that the claimant here is completely a stranger to the accident that took place on the other side, and the same was within the foresight of her shock. Thus, her claim for the same has been rejected, and she was also pregnant, which means she was not in a normal state. Hence, the claim was rejected.
In another case of Brice v. Brown of 1984, which is more recent, the facts of the case was that plaintiff, and her daughter met with an accident while on the road, and due to this accident, both the plaintiff and her daughter suffered the damages and plaintiff due to her earlier mental illness, was severed due to this accident. In this case, the court held that the plaintiff should be allowed to claim compensation under the law of torts, as this kind of accident would ordinarily make a person suffer from nervous shock. Thus, the compensation was awarded.
Conclusion:
Having seen the above situations and interpretations, it is clear that the courts have looked into the impact of damages and have been interpreting to include various acts as part of the evolution of the law of tort.
