Psychiatric Injury CASES
In English law, psychiatric injury (nervous shock) refers to a medically recognised psychiatric condition caused by a defendant’s tort. Mere grief, distress, or anxiety is not enough without a recognised disorder (for example, PTSD, major depressive disorder, or an adjustment disorder).
Definition and principles
Claims divide into primary victims and secondary victims. Primary victims are directly involved in the incident or within the range of foreseeable physical injury; ordinary negligence principles apply. Secondary victims are witnesses to injury to others and must satisfy control mechanisms: (i) a close tie of love and affection; (ii) proximity in time and space to the accident or its immediate aftermath; (iii) direct perception by sight or hearing (not via third-hand reports). Modern authority also emphasises the need for an identifiable accident or external event rather than a gradual realisation.
Common examples
- Employee suffers PTSD after being involved in an explosion at work (primary victim).
- Parent witnesses a child’s serious injury in a road traffic accident and develops a recognised disorder (secondary victim).
- Rescuer directly exposed to danger at a disaster scene (often treated as primary depending on facts).
- Claims failing where distress stems from news of injury, negligent information, or a prolonged deterioration without a single event.
Legal implications
- Diagnosis must be a recognised psychiatric condition; expert medical evidence is standard.
- For secondary victims, all control mechanisms must be met; bystanders with no close tie usually fail.
- Causation and remoteness apply; the “egg-shell skull” rule means vulnerability does not defeat liability once duty and breach are established.
- Limitation is generally three years from injury or date of knowledge (with court discretion to extend).
Practical importance
Plead whether the claimant is primary or secondary, set out the accident/event, the control mechanisms (if secondary), and provide early psychiatric evidence to confirm diagnosis and causation.
See also: Negligence; Duty of care; Secondary victims; Proximity; Rescuers; Pure psychiatric harm; Personal injury; Limitation.
Home » Psychiatric Injury
Two appeals concerning whether psychiatric injury can constitute bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Ireland made silent telephone calls causing psychiatric illness; Burstow stalked a woman causing severe depression. The House of Lords held psychiatric injury is bodily harm and can be inflicted without physical violence....
The plaintiff, on board the support vessel Tharos during the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster, claimed psychiatric injury from witnessing the catastrophe. The Court of Appeal held he was not owed a duty of care as he was neither in actual danger, a rescuer, nor had sufficient proximity as a...
D was accused of manslaughter and inflicting grievous bodily harm after his wife, allegedly subjected to long-term domestic abuse, committed suicide. The Court of Appeal held that psychological injury without a recognisable psychiatric illness does not constitute “bodily harm” under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, upholding the terminating...
Approved foster parents told the local authority they would not accept a child known or suspected to be a sexual abuser. The authority nevertheless placed such a boy, who abused their children. The House of Lords held the parents’ psychiatric injury claim was arguable and should not be struck out....
Mrs Taylor was injured at work through her employer’s admitted negligence and died three weeks later from complications. Her daughter developed PTSD after witnessing the death and claimed as a secondary victim. The Court of Appeal held she could not recover, restricting proximity for psychiatric injury claims. Facts On 27...
Mr and Mrs Reilly were trapped in an overcrowded hospital lift for over an hour and claimed for psychological harm. The Court of Appeal held that mere fear, claustrophobia and transient physical symptoms without a recognisable psychiatric illness or physical injury are not actionable in negligence. Facts Mr and Mrs...
A psychiatric patient, Armstrong, murdered four‑year‑old Rosie Palmer. Her mother sued health authorities, alleging negligent diagnosis, treatment and failure to detain him, and claiming for her own psychiatric injury. The Court of Appeal held there was no duty of care to unidentifiable victims and her secondary victim claim failed. Appeal...
Mr Page, with a pre-existing chronic fatigue condition, was involved in a car collision caused by Mr Smith but suffered no physical injury. He later developed permanent relapse of his condition. The House of Lords held that as a primary victim he only needed to show foreseeable personal injury, not...
A mother witnessed her ten-month-old baby have a fit in hospital due to negligent treatment, was given incorrect reassurances, then learned of severe brain damage, and held her son as he died 36 hours later. The court held this constituted a single horrifying event permitting recovery for psychiatric injury as...
Mrs McLoughlin suffered severe psychiatric illness after arriving at hospital to find her family seriously injured and her daughter dead following a road accident caused by the defendants' negligence. The House of Lords held she could recover damages for nervous shock despite not witnessing the accident itself, establishing that liability...
Workers negligently exposed to asbestos developed pleural plaques, which are asymptomatic fibrous changes in the lung lining. The House of Lords held that symptomless plaques alone, or combined with risk of future disease and anxiety, do not constitute actionable damage in negligence. Psychiatric illness from fear of future disease was...
Parents wrongly suspected of child abuse sought damages for psychiatric injury caused by doctors' negligent misdiagnosis. The House of Lords held that healthcare professionals investigating child abuse owe no duty of care to parents, only to the child, due to the potential conflict of interest between protecting children and parents'...
Parents of two girls killed in the Hillsborough disaster claimed damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 for injuries suffered before death. The House of Lords upheld findings that no compensable injury occurred before the swift fatal crushing, and that fear alone cannot ground a damages claim. Facts...
Four employees claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by workplace stress. The Court of Appeal established practical principles for employer liability in occupational stress cases, allowing three appeals and dismissing one. The court held that foreseeability of psychiatric harm to the specific employee is the threshold question. Facts Four appeals...
A fire officer attended an accident scene where his son had been injured through his own negligent driving. The father suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after witnessing his son's injuries. The court held that a person who inflicts injuries upon himself owes no duty of care to third parties who suffer...
Mr Gray suffered PTSD from the Ladbroke Grove rail crash caused by the defendants' negligence. Under the effects of this condition, he killed a pedestrian and was convicted of manslaughter with diminished responsibility. He claimed damages for loss of earnings during detention. The House of Lords held public policy precluded...
Police officers who suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after assisting victims at the Hillsborough disaster claimed damages from their employer. The House of Lords allowed the appeals, holding that the officers were secondary victims who could not recover for psychiatric injury as neither the employment relationship nor their role as helpers...
Mr Corr suffered severe physical and psychological injuries in a workplace accident caused by his employer's negligence. He developed severe depression and committed suicide six years later. The House of Lords held that his suicide was a foreseeable consequence of his depression and the employer remained liable under the Fatal...
A pregnant fishwife suffered nervous shock after hearing a motorcycle collision approximately 50 feet away, though she was never in physical danger and saw nothing of the accident itself. The House of Lords held the motorcyclist owed her no duty of care as she was outside the foreseeable area of...
Mr Barber, a schoolteacher, suffered a mental breakdown due to work-related stress after his employer failed to respond adequately to his complaints about workload. The House of Lords restored the trial judge's finding that the employer breached its duty of care by failing to investigate and provide assistance following clear...
Following the Hillsborough disaster where 95 people died in a stadium crush, relatives and friends of victims claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by witnessing the events on television or at the ground. The House of Lords dismissed all appeals, establishing that recovery for nervous shock requires proximity in time,...
Parents claimed damages for psychiatric injury after discovering organs had been removed and retained from their deceased children during post-mortems without their knowledge or consent. The court held that while doctors owed a duty of care to explain organ retention possibilities, there is no tort of wrongful interference with a...