Pang Koi Fa v Lim Djoe Phing

In this case a mother (the plaintiff) sued a neurosurgeon (the defendant) on the basis that she
developed a psychiatric illness (personality change, suicide attempt and depression), after
witnessing the ill-health and death of her daughter, which was negligently caused by the
defendant. Prior to this case the defendant had already been found liable in negligence for the
death of the plaintiff's daughter. JC Amarjeet found for the plaintiff and awarded recovery for
nervous shock.

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

This case arose from the disaster that occurred at football stadium. South Yorkshire Police had
been responsible for crowd control at the football match and had been negligent in directing an
excessively large number of spectators to one end of the stadium which resulted in the fatal crush
in which 95 people were killed and over 400 were physically injured. The scenes were broadcast
live on television. Ten appeals were made to the House of Lords. These included claims made by
brothers, sisters, parents, a grand-parent and a fiancé. Two of the claimants had been at the
ground but in a different area. Some had seen the events unfold on the television, some had heard
about the events in other ways. Some had identified bodies at the makeshift mortuary.

Held: The appeals were dismissed.

Mclouglin v O’Brian

The claimant’s husband and three of her children were involved in a serious road traffic accident
in which their car was struck by a lorry due to the negligence of the defendant lorry driver.
Unfortunately one of the children was killed on impact. An ambulance took the injured parties to
hospital. She saw her family suffering before they had been treated and cleaned up. As a result
she suffered severe shock, organic depression and a personality change.

Held: The claimant’s appeal was allowed and she was entitled to recover for the psychiatric
injury received. The House of Lords extended the class of persons who would be considered
proximate to the event to those who come within the immediate aftermath of the event.
Hevican v Ruane

The plaintiff’s was entitled to recover damages from the defendant estate notwithstanding that he
was not present at the immediate aftermath of the accident and it was not foreseeable that the
nervous shock suffered by the plaintiff would result in continuing psychological illness such as
continuing reactive depression, since although the shock to the plaintiff was administered
indirectly by a third party.

Each link in the chain of causation from the driver‘s negligence to the news of the death of the
plaintiff’s son being communicated to him causing him to suffer nervous shock was foreseeable
and therefore gave rise to liability.

Hinz v Berry

Mr and Mrs Hinz are a family of four children of their own and fostered four other children.
They stopped in a lay-by to have a picnic. Mrs Hinz went across the road with one of the
children to pick bluebells. A car driven by Mr Berry then came hurtling at speed the driver lost
control and smashed into the dormobile. Mrs Hinz witnessed the horrible scene. Her husband
died and the children were badly injured. As a consequence of this she became morbidly
depressed.

Held: She was entitled to recover as she had demonstrated a recognised psychiatric condition as
opposed to feelings of grief and sorrow.