North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA Civ 1792

A mother suffered psychiatric illness after witnessing a 36-hour period of negligent medical care culminating in her baby's death. The Court of Appeal held this entire seamless period could constitute a single, shocking event, allowing her to claim damages for nervous shock.

Facts

The claimant, Mrs Walters, brought a claim for psychiatric illness (nervous shock) following the death of her 10-month-old baby, who was under the care of the defendant, North Glamorgan NHS Trust. The baby suffered a major epileptic fit and was taken to hospital. Due to a negligent failure to diagnose and treat acute hepatitis, his condition deteriorated severely over a 36-hour period. During this time, the claimant witnessed a series of distressing events: the misdiagnosis, the transfer to another hospital’s paediatric liver unit, being told her baby had suffered severe brain damage and had no hope of recovery, and finally, agreeing to the withdrawal of life support, after which he died in her arms. The claimant suffered a pathological grief reaction, a recognised psychiatric illness.

Issues

The primary legal issue on appeal was whether the claimant, as a secondary victim, could establish that her psychiatric illness was caused by ‘shock’ from a single horrifying event. The defendant Trust argued that the 36-hour period was not a single event, but a series of separate events. They contended that the claimant’s illness arose from a gradual accumulation of grief and distress over that period, which, based on the authority of Sion v Hampstead Health Authority, would not be sufficient to ground a claim for nervous shock. The core question was whether a ‘shocking event’ could be constituted by a sequence of connected events unfolding over a period of time, rather than a single, sudden incident.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge’s decision in favour of the claimant. Lord Justice Ward, giving the leading judgment, held that the entire 36-hour experience could be legally regarded as a single ‘horrifying event’. He rejected the defendant’s attempt to break down the experience into discrete parts and distinguished the case from Sion, where the ordeal took place over two weeks. Ward LJ emphasised the uninterrupted and ‘seamless’ nature of the experience from the claimant’s perspective.

Key Reasoning and Quotations

The court reasoned that the criteria for secondary victims laid down in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police were satisfied. The pivotal finding was that the requirement of ‘shock’ from ‘a single horrifying event’ could be met by a continuous sequence of events. Ward LJ stated:

In my judgment this was an experience which was sufficiently sudden, and I would not debar the claimant from succeeding on that ground … For my part I would not de-construct the event in the way the defendant invites me to do. The horrific event was the culmination of the events which began when the baby had the fit … and it continued until his death … That is a period of 36 hours. To be interrupted by moments of calm, and hope, as well as by moments of extreme distress, does not alter the fact that it was a single event.

He concluded that the experience was not a gradual realisation of an outcome over a long period, but a compressed and terrifying ordeal:

It is a seamless tale with an obvious beginning and an equally obvious end. It was played out over a period of 36 hours, which for her was undoubtedly one drawn-out experience… I have no difficulty in holding that the period from the baby’s fit to his death can and should be regarded as a single horrifying event, in which the defendant’s breach of duty was a material cause of the claimant’s psychiatric injury.

Implications

The judgment in North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters is significant for the law of tort, particularly concerning claims for psychiatric injury by secondary victims in a clinical negligence context. It clarified and broadened the definition of a ‘shocking event’. The case established that the ‘event’ does not have to be a single, instantaneous moment but can be an uninterrupted sequence of horrifying events over a period of hours. This provides greater scope for claimants whose trauma unfolds over a period of time, which is common in medical negligence scenarios. It represents a more flexible and realistic approach to causation in nervous shock claims, focusing on the claimant’s whole experience rather than artificially dissecting the timeline of events.

Verdict: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant’s award of damages for psychiatric injury was upheld.

Source: North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA Civ 1792