| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgment | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
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
