Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
Citation:Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
Rule of thumb:If you see a family member with a serous injury caused by illegal behaviour to them, can you sue for damages as well? Yes, if an actual medical psychiatric condition is suffered. Where someone sees their immediate family with a severe injury caused by the negligence of another person, then they are entitled to the damage of psychiatric shock but this does not extend to passers-by who are not directly involved in the accident – these cases fall down on reasonably foreseeable – it is not reasonably foreseeable to know who is going to be there.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘Can it be said that John Young could reasonably have anticipated that a person, situated as was the appellant, would be affected by his proceeding towards Colinton at the speed at which he was travelling? I think not. His road was clear of pedestrians. The appellant was not within his vision, but was standing behind the solid barrier of the tramcar. His speed in no way endangered her. In these circumstances I am unable to see how he could reasonably anticipate that, if he came into collision with a vehicle coming across the tramcar into Glenlockhart Road, the resultant noise would cause physical injury by shock to a person standing behind the tramcar. In my opinion, he owed no duty to the appellant, and was, therefore, not guilty of any negligence in relation to her’ – Lord Russell
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.