Reilly v Merseyside HA [1994] EWCA Civ 30

An elderly couple were trapped in a faulty hospital lift for over an hour, causing them distress but no physical injury or recognised psychiatric illness. The court held that damages for mere mental distress, such as fear and anxiety, are not recoverable in negligence.

Facts

The plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Reilly, aged 61 and 72 respectively, went to visit their prematurely born grandchild at the Women’s Hospital in Liverpool, which was managed by the defendant, Merseyside Regional Health Authority. While in a hospital lift, it malfunctioned, trapping them for one hour and twenty minutes. Mr Reilly suffered from angina and a pre-existing condition of claustrophobia, while Mrs Reilly became distressed, hot, and had difficulty breathing. Neither plaintiff suffered any physical injury as a result of the incident, nor did their distress develop into a recognised psychiatric illness. They brought an action in negligence against the health authority for the anxiety and fear they experienced.

Issues

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a plaintiff can recover damages in the tort of negligence for mental distress (such as fear, anxiety, or panic) which is not accompanied by any physical injury and does not amount to a recognised psychiatric illness (i.e., ‘nervous shock’).

Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court that damages were not recoverable in these circumstances.

Lord Justice Saville

Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Saville affirmed the general principle that mental distress alone is not a basis for a claim in negligence. He drew a clear distinction between actionable psychiatric illness (nervous shock) and non-actionable ‘mere’ mental distress. He acknowledged the arbitrary nature of some legal distinctions in this area, stating:

The law in this area is a patchwork of distinctions which are difficult to justify.

However, he concluded that established precedent prevented a finding for the plaintiffs. He distinguished claims for pain and suffering that are dependent on a physical injury from claims for mental anguish alone:

It must be regarded as settled law that damages are not recoverable for mental distress which is not accompanied by physical injury, although the law is otherwise where the distress is the result of a physical injury negligently inflicted… In my judgment, therefore, the law is that, while a plaintiff who has suffered physical injury as a result of the defendant’s negligence can recover damages for his pain and suffering and loss of amenity, such damages cannot be recovered for mere mental anguish which is not itself the consequence of a physical injury.

He reasoned that the symptoms described by the plaintiffs, such as claustrophobia and fear, were normal human emotions in a stressful situation rather than a recognised medical condition caused by shock.

Lord Justice Dillon

Lord Justice Dillon concurred, emphasising that the claim was for an emotional response that fell short of the legal threshold for recovery:

It is now, I think, clear… that shock, in the context of this corner of the law, is a convenient, if perhaps misleading, shorthand for a recognisable psychiatric illness or disability… What the present two plaintiffs are claiming for is for ‘mere anguish or distress’.

He concluded that policy and precedent were firmly against awarding damages for such claims.

Lord Justice Mann

Lord Justice Mann also agreed with the judgment delivered by Lord Justice Saville.

Implications

The case of Reilly v Merseyside RHA serves as a key authority reaffirming the traditional common law position that ‘mere’ emotional or mental distress, where it does not amount to a recognised psychiatric illness or stem from a physical injury, is not compensable in negligence. It highlights the policy concern of the courts to avoid opening the ‘floodgates’ to litigation for everyday anxieties and fears. The judgment solidifies the crucial distinction between non-actionable mental distress and an actionable psychiatric injury (nervous shock), making it a foundational case in the study of liability for psychiatric harm in tort law.

Verdict: The appeal was dismissed. The court held that damages were not recoverable for the mental distress suffered by the plaintiffs.

Source: Reilly v Merseyside HA [1994] EWCA Civ 30