July 5, 2024
DU LLBLaw of TortsSemester 1

(Hay or ) Bourhill V Young [1943] AC 92 – (1942) 2 All ER 396

Facts

  • Mr young had been negligently riding his motorcycle and was responsible for a collision with car in which he himself suffered fatal injuries
  • At the time of the crash, Mr bounhill (c ) was in the process of leaving a tram about 50 feet away. C heard the crash and , after Mr Young’s body had been removed from the scene, she approached and witnessed the immediate aftermath.
  • C was 8 months pregnant at the time of the incident and later gave birth to a stillborn child.
  • C subsequently brought an action against Mr Young’s estate, claiming she had suffered nervous shock, stress and sustained loss due to the negligence of D

Principles

  • Whether D owed a duty of care to C. in order for such a duty to be found it has to be said that C was both sufficiently proximate to the incident itself and it so that D ought reasonably to have foreseen that, in driving negligently , he might cause psychiatric damage to a person hearing the crash from C’s position
  • Held
    • D was not liable for any psychiatric harm that C might have suffered as a result of the accident .
  • It was not foreseeable that C would suffer psychiatric harm as a result of D negligently causing a loud traffic accident , nor was C sufficiently proximate to the scene of the crash itself.

D therefore could owe no duty of care of C

Related posts

Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors.(2020) 6 SCC 1

vikash Kumar

Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Bldg. Material Supply AIR 1969 SC 1267

vikash Kumar

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1958

Dharamvir S Bainda

Leave a Comment