In English law, personal injury refers to physical or psychiatric harm suffered by an individual as a result of another’s wrongdoing. It is
not a single cause of action, but a broad category encompassing claims in negligence, statutory liability, and other civil wrongs where
compensation is sought for injury to the person.
Personal injury includes bodily harm, illness, and medically recognised psychiatric injury. Claims most commonly arise in negligence, but may
also be based on breach of statutory duty, occupiers’ liability, employers’ liability, product liability, and, in limited cases, intentional
torts.
The focus of personal injury law is on establishing liability for harm and assessing appropriate compensation, rather than on punishment.
Issues of duty of care, breach, causation, and remoteness are central to determining whether a defendant is legally responsible.
Personal injury claims frequently arise from road traffic accidents, workplace accidents, medical negligence, slips and trips, defective
products, and exposure to harmful substances. Psychiatric injury claims, including those involving nervous shock, may also fall within this category.
Liability for personal injury is governed primarily by the common law of negligence, supplemented by statutory regimes such as the Occupiers’ Liability Acts, the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and health and safety legislation. Claims are subject to limitation periods and may be reduced by contributory negligence.
Successful personal injury claims typically result in compensatory damages, including awards for pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and
pecuniary loss such as medical expenses and loss of earnings. The assessment of damages is a central feature of personal injury litigation.
Personal injury law affects individuals, employers, insurers, and public bodies on a daily basis. It provides the principal mechanism for
compensating injury caused by accidents and negligence, leading to significant social and economic consequences.
See also: Negligence; Duty of care; Causation; Psychiatric injury; Nervous shock; Damages; Contributory negligence; Limitation periods.
In 1988 the defendant attempted to rape the claimant and received a life sentence. After his 2004 release he won £7 million on the National Lottery, prompting the claimant to sue for psychiatric injury. Despite a 16‑year delay, the court exercised its section 33 discretion to disapply limitation and allow her personal injury claim to proceed.
Employees in the knitting industry claimed compensation for noise-induced hearing loss from exposure to noise levels between 85-90dB(A) before 1990. The Supreme Court examined employer liability under common law negligence and the Factories Act 1961, determining that compliance with the 1972 Code of Practice provided a defence for average employers until the late 1980s.
The plaintiff was injured in a car accident caused by the defendant's negligence, damaging his left leg. Before trial, robbers shot his leg, necessitating amputation. The House of Lords held that the defendant remained liable for the original injury's consequences, as the subsequent injury did not diminish or obliterate the losses already caused.
Two British servicemen stationed in Malta were involved in a road accident. The plaintiff sued in England for damages including pain and suffering, which were not recoverable under Maltese law. The Court of Appeal held English law applied to assess damages, awarding £2,303 rather than the £53 available under Maltese law.
A passenger injured in a Hong Kong road accident appealed against damages awarded. The Privy Council considered whether courts should compare awards across jurisdictions and whether future loss of earning capacity required specific pleading and evidence. The appeal succeeded in part, deleting the unpleaded and unproven future earning capacity award.
Mrs Geary sustained tetraplegia after sliding down banisters in a pub and falling backwards onto the marble floor below. She sued the pub owners for negligence. The court held that she had voluntarily assumed an obvious and inherent risk, and the defendant owed no duty to protect her from her own freely chosen dangerous conduct.
A 13-year-old boy fell and fractured his hip. The hospital negligently failed to diagnose the injury for five days. He developed avascular necrosis causing permanent disability. The House of Lords held that since there was a 75% probability the damage was inevitable from the fall itself, causation was not established and damages for 'loss of chance' were not recoverable.
A woman severely injured in a motorcycle accident driven by her partner (later husband) claimed damages including the value of care he provided. The House of Lords held that a plaintiff cannot recover damages for gratuitous care services rendered by the tortfeasor himself, as such damages must be held on trust for the carer.
Veterans of British nuclear tests claimed injuries from radiation exposure. The Supreme Court considered whether their claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, specifically examining when 'knowledge' of attributability arose for limitation purposes. The majority held that subjective belief could constitute knowledge, dismissing the appeals.
During wartime, a Ministry inspector was injured by an explosion in a munitions factory operated by contractors. She alleged strict liability without negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. The House of Lords held there is no such liability absent escape from the occupier’s land.
A 20‑year‑old dived into Astbury Mere, striking his head on a submerged fibreglass container and suffering catastrophic injury. As a trespasser, he claimed under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The Court of Appeal held the occupiers had no duty, as they neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known of the hidden obstruction.
A customs officer walking lawfully between warehouses in London docks was struck by six falling bags of sugar. The Exchequer Chamber held such an unexplained accident, where the docks were under the defendants’ control, was reasonable evidence of negligence, articulating the principle that the accident itself can prove fault.
An experienced rider was injured after a horse fitted with a bitless bridle for the first time failed to respond and she fell. Her Animals Act 1971 claim failed because, although section 2(2) conditions were effectively satisfied, the Court of Appeal held she had voluntarily accepted the inherent risks of riding under section 5(2).
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive