Nervous Shock in Torts

Nervous shock in torts describes a psychological injury or emotional distress that a person suffers due to the negligent or intentional actions of another party. In tort law, there are several elements that must be established to make a successful claim for nervous shock, which is sometimes also referred to as “emotional distress” or “psychological harm.”

The specific legal principles and elements required can vary by jurisdiction, but there are common themes.

What is Nervous Shock?

Nervous shock in tort refers to a mental illness or injury resulting from the intentional, negligent or reckless actions or omissions of another person. It typically occurs when an individual has a genuine fear of suffering immediate personal harm. This type of shock often manifests as a psychological condition brought on by witnessing a traumatic event, such as an accident involving one’s family members or spouse.

Despite criticisms that the term is inaccurate and misleading, “nervous shock” continues to be used as a convenient shorthand for a complex legal concept. In English law, there are strict limitations on the amount of compensation that can be sought for nervous shock, especially when it arises from negligence.

Who can bring a Nervous Shock Claim?

A nervous shock in tort claim can be brought by an individual who has been diagnosed with a genuine mental illness resulting from an event that the defendant should have reasonably anticipated could cause such an illness in a person of “normal fortitude” if reasonable care were not taken.

In addition to the affected individual, certain close relatives of the victim can also bring a nervous shock claim. These close relatives include:

• One of the victim’s parents.
• People who are parents to the victim.
• The victim’s spouse or domestic partner.
• The victim’s child or stepchild.
• Any other individual for whom the victim serves as a parent.

The term “close relatives” also encompasses siblings, half-brothers or half-sisters, step-brothers and step-sisters. A spouse, husband, wife or de facto partner is referred to as a “spouse or partner” in this context. These close relatives may bring a nervous shock claim if the criteria for such a claim are met.

Evolution of Nervous Shock in Torts

Over time, the legal principles surrounding nervous shock in torts have evolved. Courts have expanded the scope of claims to encompass a variety of potential scenarios, moving beyond just immediate shock. Initially, the courts were cautious about recognizing claims related to psychiatric illness, fearing fraudulent or spurious claims under the guise of mental health issues.

One challenge in these cases can be demonstrating the connection between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s shock stemming from those actions. This connection is essential for a successful nervous shock claim.

Tests of a Claim of Nervous Shock

The legal test for a nervous shock claim typically involves three criteria established by common law:

• Duty of Care: The defendant must owe the plaintiff a duty of care, meaning the defendant had a legal obligation to act reasonably and avoid causing harm to the plaintiff.
• Foreseeability of Psychological Harm: It must be reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff could experience psychological harm as a result of the defendant’s actions or inaction. In other words, a reasonable person in the defendant’s position should have anticipated the risk of causing psychological harm to the plaintiff.
• Causation: The plaintiff’s psychological injury must be a direct result of the defendant’s negligent act or omission. The plaintiff must establish a clear causal link between the defendant’s actions and their psychological harm.

Compensation in Nervous Shock Claims

There are two types of victims of nervous shock in torts:

Primary Victim: A primary victim is someone who is directly harmed in an accident due to the negligence of the wrongdoer. This person is physically affected by the incident.

Secondary Victim: A secondary victim is an individual who experiences nervous shock as a result of an accident that harmed the initial victim but was not physically endangered themselves.

Cases of Nervous Shock in Torts

Here are two notable case laws related to nervous shock in torts:

Bourhill v. Young

Facts: In this case, the House of Lords addressed the issue of liability for mental illness. A pregnant woman exited a tram and heard the distant sound of a car accident. She then visited the accident scene, saw blood on the road and later experienced a miscarriage due to the stress she endured.

Judgment: The House of Lords ruled that the woman was not a “foreseeable claimant.” In other words, she was not allowed to base her claim on harm done to another person. This case set a precedent that limited who could bring a claim for nervous shock in torts.

McLoughlin v. O’Brian

Facts: In this case, the plaintiff was not physically present near the accident but was greatly distressed upon learning about it.

Judgment: The House of Lords held the defendants responsible and expanded the law to include cases where the plaintiff arrived immediately after the accident but had not personally witnessed or heard it. Lord Wilberforce proposed three control mechanisms that should be determined in each case: the group of people whose claims should be accepted, their proximity to the disaster and the mechanisms leading to mental illness. Following a unanimous vote in the House of Lords, these control mechanisms were revised and applied to cases involving nervous shock in torts.

Laws Related to Nervous Shock/Psychiatric Damages in India

In India, the jurisdiction and liability concerning psychiatric damages in tort law are not extensively developed. While there isn’t specific legislation addressing nervous shock, Indian courts have, in various cases, granted compensation to plaintiffs based on the principle of reasonableness.

One significant case is Jose Philip Mamphilly v. Premier Automobile Limited. In this case, the plaintiff purchased a brand new car that turned out to be defective. The mental distress caused by this experience led to a nervous shock in torts. The manufacturer denied liability, claiming the matter was trivial. However, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, granting compensation for the mental agony endured. This case highlighted the need for compensation in situations where consumers suffer mental distress due to defective products.

The recent judgment in Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank emphasised that the amount of compensation awarded would depend on the specific circumstances of each case, considering factors such as the nature and duration of the harassment and the authority’s actions that led to the distress.

While India lacks specific legislation governing liability for nervous shock, aspects related to mental health are addressed under the Mental Health Act, 1987. The compensation for psychiatric damages is typically determined on the basis of reasonableness and the facts of each case.

Another notable case is Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, where the plaintiff sought compensation for harassment and mental agony after the authority failed to provide a flat as promised. The court granted compensation, emphasizing the social benefit of such a judgment.

Cases related to psychiatric damages, like Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh and Haryana Development Authority v. Vijay Aggarwal, have followed a similar line of judgment based on reasonableness.

However, in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. UOI, the court took a different approach, focusing primarily on the terms of a contract and applying The Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court did not consider tort aspects and stated that compensating the plaintiff for mental anguish was improper in this case.

In summary, India does not have specific legislation addressing liability for nervous shock in torts and cases related to psychiatric damages are determined based on reasonableness and the individual circumstances of each case. The approach taken by the courts for matters concerning torts law can vary, with some cases emphasizing contractual aspects while others consider tort principles.

Conclusion

Nervous shock in tort law refers to the emotional distress or psychiatric harm suffered by an individual due to the negligent or intentional actions of another party. To establish a claim for nervous shock, several key elements must be proven, including the defendant’s duty of care, a breach of that duty, foreseeability of psychological harm and a direct causal link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s emotional distress.

Compensation may be awarded to victims, but the specific legal principles and limitations can vary by jurisdiction. Nervous shock cases often involve scenarios where individuals witness traumatic events or experience emotional distress due to the defendant’s actions and they seek compensation for their psychological suffering.