Nervous Shock: Nervous shock is a form of personal injury for which damages may or may not be awarded as it depends on the facts of t…
Nervous Shock:
Nervous shock is a form of personal injury for which damages
may or may not be awarded as it depends on the facts of the case that whether
the defendant is responsible for carrying Nervous shock to the plaintiff or
not. The plaintiff may be a sensitive plaintiff then the test is of ordinary
prudence i.e. if it would have been some other person of ordinary prudence in
the given situation then it would have caused the same loss to him also.
may or may not be awarded as it depends on the facts of the case that whether
the defendant is responsible for carrying Nervous shock to the plaintiff or
not. The plaintiff may be a sensitive plaintiff then the test is of ordinary
prudence i.e. if it would have been some other person of ordinary prudence in
the given situation then it would have caused the same loss to him also.
Example Nervous shock is not visible as wounds but the plaintiff/sufferer
appearing on the body. The law of nervous shock is gaining popularity as a
civil wrong and many cases are settled in court of law giving relief to the
plaintiffs.
appearing on the body. The law of nervous shock is gaining popularity as a
civil wrong and many cases are settled in court of law giving relief to the
plaintiffs.
The law of nervous shock has developed in a slow phase as
before the case of Duliue Vs. White it was not recognized as civil wrong
and no compensation was granted prior to Duliue Vs. White.
before the case of Duliue Vs. White it was not recognized as civil wrong
and no compensation was granted prior to Duliue Vs. White.
Case Law : Bourhil Vs. Young
The plaintiff a fisher-woman was unloading baskets of fishes
from the cart. She saw a motorcyclist go past her, in top speed. A short while,
she heard a collision. She went to the accident spot and saw blood spluttered
all over. She suffered nervous shock and as she was carrying a child, she
delivered a stillborn child. She sued the legal representatives of the deceased
motorcyclist. She was not allowed any compensation, as the deceased could not
have foreseen the nervous shock suffered by the lady, also he owed no duty of
care to her.
from the cart. She saw a motorcyclist go past her, in top speed. A short while,
she heard a collision. She went to the accident spot and saw blood spluttered
all over. She suffered nervous shock and as she was carrying a child, she
delivered a stillborn child. She sued the legal representatives of the deceased
motorcyclist. She was not allowed any compensation, as the deceased could not
have foreseen the nervous shock suffered by the lady, also he owed no duty of
care to her.
No
compensation
compensation
Case Law : Victorian Railway
Commissioners Vs. Coults
Commissioners Vs. Coults
Applicant servant negligently allowed the plaintiff to drive
over a railway level crossing. The cart was saved because of diligence of cart
driver but the lady sitting inside who was pregnant lost her children as the
escape was so near and the damage was so alarming, she also sustained nervous
shock and could not sleep throughout nor remaining life without medicine even
then the court held that as there was no physical impact so damage can’t be
paid.
over a railway level crossing. The cart was saved because of diligence of cart
driver but the lady sitting inside who was pregnant lost her children as the
escape was so near and the damage was so alarming, she also sustained nervous
shock and could not sleep throughout nor remaining life without medicine even
then the court held that as there was no physical impact so damage can’t be
paid.
But after the case of Duliue’s it was clear that nervous
shock is a civil wrong and defendant would be liable considering the situation
and remoteness in damages.
shock is a civil wrong and defendant would be liable considering the situation
and remoteness in damages.
Case Law : Hambrook
V. Stockes Brothers
V. Stockes Brothers
The defendant’s servant negligently left a motor lorry
unattended with engine running at the top of a narrow street which contained a
steep ending. It (Lorry) went down the street and injured the plaintiff’s
daughter. The lady did not witness the accident but saw lorry coming down
without the driver by the street the lady told that this monstrous lorry had
hit the girl child. She being the mother of girl had a nervous shock and died
as a consequence. It was held that driver was negligent and liable for the
damage of the mother.
unattended with engine running at the top of a narrow street which contained a
steep ending. It (Lorry) went down the street and injured the plaintiff’s
daughter. The lady did not witness the accident but saw lorry coming down
without the driver by the street the lady told that this monstrous lorry had
hit the girl child. She being the mother of girl had a nervous shock and died
as a consequence. It was held that driver was negligent and liable for the
damage of the mother.
Case Law : King
V. Phillips
V. Phillips
The defendant’s taxi (cab) driver was negligently backed
into a small boy (on a tricycle) and slightly damaged the tricycle. Mother
heard screaming of child and looked out of window saw the tricycle under the
cab but could not see her child. She had a nervous shock and as a consequence driver
was held liable.
into a small boy (on a tricycle) and slightly damaged the tricycle. Mother
heard screaming of child and looked out of window saw the tricycle under the
cab but could not see her child. She had a nervous shock and as a consequence driver
was held liable.
Practice exercise:
1.
The law of nervous shock has developed in a slow phase as before the
case of Duliue Vs. White it was not recognized as civil wrong and no
compensation was granted prior to Duliue Vs. White
The law of nervous shock has developed in a slow phase as before the
case of Duliue Vs. White it was not recognized as civil wrong and no
compensation was granted prior to Duliue Vs. White
A. True
B. False
Ans: A
2. The defendant’s taxi (cab)
driver was negligently backed into a small boy (on a tricycle) and slightly
damaged the tricycle. Mother heard screaming of child and looked out of window
saw the tricycle under the cab but could not see her child. She had a nervous
shock. Will the driver be liable?
driver was negligently backed into a small boy (on a tricycle) and slightly
damaged the tricycle. Mother heard screaming of child and looked out of window
saw the tricycle under the cab but could not see her child. She had a nervous
shock. Will the driver be liable?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: A
3.
The defendant’s servant negligently left a motor lorry unattended with
engine running at the top of a narrow street which contained a steep ending. It
(Lorry) went down the street and injured the plaintiff’s daughter. The lady did
not witness the accident but saw lorry coming down without the driver by the
street the lady told that this monstrous lorry had hit the girl child. She
being the mother of girl had a nervous shock and died as a consequence. Will
the driver be liable?
The defendant’s servant negligently left a motor lorry unattended with
engine running at the top of a narrow street which contained a steep ending. It
(Lorry) went down the street and injured the plaintiff’s daughter. The lady did
not witness the accident but saw lorry coming down without the driver by the
street the lady told that this monstrous lorry had hit the girl child. She
being the mother of girl had a nervous shock and died as a consequence. Will
the driver be liable?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: A
4. The plaintiff a fisher-woman
was unloading baskets of fishes from the cart. She saw a motorcyclist go past
her, in top speed. A short while, she heard a collision. She went to the
accident spot and saw blood spluttered all over. She suffered nervous shock and
as she was carrying a child, she delivered a stillborn child. Will the
defendant be liable?
was unloading baskets of fishes from the cart. She saw a motorcyclist go past
her, in top speed. A short while, she heard a collision. She went to the
accident spot and saw blood spluttered all over. She suffered nervous shock and
as she was carrying a child, she delivered a stillborn child. Will the
defendant be liable?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: B
5. Applicant servant negligently
allowed the plaintiff to drive over a railway level crossing. The cart was
saved because of diligence of cart driver but the lady sitting inside who was
pregnant lost her children as the escape was so near and the damage was so
alarming, she also sustained nervous shock and could not sleep throughout nor
remaining life without medicine. Will the defendant be held liable?
allowed the plaintiff to drive over a railway level crossing. The cart was
saved because of diligence of cart driver but the lady sitting inside who was
pregnant lost her children as the escape was so near and the damage was so
alarming, she also sustained nervous shock and could not sleep throughout nor
remaining life without medicine. Will the defendant be held liable?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: A
