This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Nervous shock is the branch of tort of its recent origin. In the year 1901 a Pigeon Hole was made to Nervous shock as a tort. Before it became tort it used to come under the tort of negligence. It must require two types of medium (i) Perception of Eye and (ii) Perception of Ear. As far back as 1888, the judicial committee of privy council in Victorian Railway Commissioner v. Coultas, did not recognize injury caused by a shock sustained through the medium of eye or ear without direct contact. They thought that an action could not be sustained unless there was a physical impact or something akin to it. Not long after the above-sated decision we, however, find that injury caused by nervous shock, without there being any physical impact, has been recognized. “The crude view that the law should take congnizance only of physical injury resulting from actual impact has been discarded, and it is now well recognized that an action will lie for ijury bt shock sustained through the medium of the eye or the ear, without direct contact. In 1897, in Wilkinson v.Downton, the defendant was held liable when the plaintiff suffered nervous shock and got seriousy ill on being told falsely, by way of practical joke, by the defendant that her husband had broken both the les in an accident. In Dulieu v.White and Sons also, an action for nervous mshock resulting in physical injuries was recognized. There the defendant‟s servant negligently drove a horse van into a public house and the plaintiff, a pregnant woman, who was standing there behind the bar, although not physically injured, suffeed nervous shock, as a result of which she got seriously ill and gave premature birth to a still both child. The defendants were held liable. Kennedy, J.although recognized an action ofr nervous shock but he imposed a very great limitation when he held that for such an action, the shock must be such as “ arises from reaspnable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself” This meant that if by the negligence of X,danger is created for A,A
A can not sue X. a ladyh saw a lorry violently running down the steep and narrow street. on the other hand.said.in Dulieu v. suffered nervous shock when the saw that by the breaking of a rope of the crane. If by a negligent ct towards B. AtkinL.” In Dolley v. The case of Hambrook v. Stokes Bros. who has negligently lelft the lorry unattended there. suffers nervous shock. J. another person. When tol by some by stander that a child answering the description of one of hr children had been injured. “The rope had broken due to the negligence of . nervous shock to A can be fireseen.can bring an ction. and it the suffering of another be the result of an act wrongful to the spectator. its load fell into the hold of a ship where some men were at work. say A. the driver of a crane.. Personally I see no reson for excluding the b ystanderinl the highway who receives injury in the same way from apprehension of or the actual sight of injury to a third party.J. Expressly disapproving the above-stated lim itation imposed by Kennedy. she suffered nervous shock which resulted in her death. I do not see why the wrongdoer should escape. In an ction against the defendants. Commell Laird an Co. seeing or hearing of the danger to B. There may well be cases where the sight of suffering will directly and immediately physically shock the most indurate heart. if he suffers nervous shock. A person may suffer nervous shock even through he himself is not within the area of physical injury to himself. If ... A is will with the area where injury through nervous shock could be caused to him n thre seemed to be no ljustification for debarring A from bringing an action. White. She was frightened about the saety to hber children. recognized an action when danger of physical injury to B caused a nervous shock to A. the plaintiff. The facts of the case are as follows: Soon after having parted with her children in a narrow street. they were held liable even thought the lady suffering the nervous shock was not herself within the area of physical injury.
In the accident which had occurred. After the body of the motor cyclist had been removed. however. a fishwife while getting out of a tramcar heard of an accident but could not see the same as hse was about 50 feet away from the scene and her view was obstructed by the tramcar. he did not owe any duty of care to her and as such. .the defendants and they were held liable to the plaintiff. the fishwife happened to go to the scene of the accident and saw the blood on the road. In Owensv. As a result of the same. L. as has been stated above. it is. The House of Lords held that the deceased could not be expected to foresee any injury to the plaintiff and. Although. a neglientmotor cyclist had been killed. it is not necessary that the plaintiff himself must be in the area of physical impact to bring an action for nervous shock. therefore. In Bourhill v. she suffered nervous shock and gave birth to a still born child. it is no answer to claim for a fractured skull that its owner had an unusually fragile one. Mackinnon.J said: One who is guilty of negligence to another must put up with idiosyncrasies of his victim that increase the likelihood or extent of damage to him. Where any kind of injury to the plaintiff cannot be foreseen by the defendant. the defendant does not owe ay duty of care to the plaintiff and will not be liable for the loss suffered by him. Peculiar susceptibility of the mourners at that time as held to be no defence. necessary that that plaintiff must be so placed where injury through nervous shock can be foreseen. his personal representatives could not be made liable. Liverpool Corporation the Court of Appeal allowed the plintiff‟s action for nervous shock which was caused not because of nay peril to human life but by th imperilment of a coffin containing the corpse of a near relative. the plaintiff.Youg.
could only see the tricycle under the taxi-cab and heard the boy scream but could not see the boy. who was in an upstairs window. she was not on the highway.In King v Phillips. it is enough that he is so placed that a shock could be caused to him by his seeing or hearing something. The boy and the tricycle got slightly damaged but the mother suffered nervous shock. the defendant‟s servant was negligently backing a taxi-cab into a boy on a tricycle. . but h knew nothing of the mother. The facts in this case do not appear to be much different from those in Ham brook v Stokes bros. at a distance of about 70 to 80 yards. a person need not be in the area of physical injury to himself. therefore. appears that the case of King v Phillips requires reconsideration. It.L. The boy‟s mother. nor was there any reason why he should anticipate that she would see his cab at all. The mother was held to be wholly outside the area of reasonable apprehension and the defendants were held not liable. where the mother suffering nervous shock because of fear of injury to her children could recover. For the purpose of an action for nervous shock.. he could not have known that she was at the window.J “The driver owned a duty to the boy. According to Singleton.
An intention to cause harm could be therefore imputed to him and no justification was alleged . The phrase „nervous shock‟ is generally used as a convenient caption for discussing the cases on this subject. Controversy. and had in fact thereby caused physical harm to her. The reasons for the dcision were stated thus. sorrow. The question has arisen in two clalsses of cases. She was awarded damages for the serous illness from which she suffered as a consequence of fear and anxieiety and in addition. the expenses of her going to the hospital. In Wilkinson v downton decided in 1897. thought it will be an element to agraavate damages where there is an independent cause of action. or distress to him. battery. such as bidily barm. The defendant was liabl because he had willfully done an act calculated ti cauyse harm to the plaintiff. In the cases in which action ofr such shock have been allowed. but by words or acts calculalted to cause emorional disturbance like fear. but the words nervous. frightened her with false news that her husband had met with a serious accident resulting in both his legs being broken and was lying in a hospital. mental or emotional lshock are now used interchaneably in the presentcontext.that is to say-to infrigne her legal right to personal safety. the plaintiff complained of some bodily illness capable of being proved by medical or lscientific evidence. thought the shock was caused not by the application of physical force to the body of the sufferer. This is now settled by decisions in Egland and elsewhere and has been accepted as good law in India It is also well settled that mere emotional disturbance not lfollowed ny any appreciable illness will bot be a cause of action. on the part of the defendant. out of mischief. the plaintiff complained that the defendant.NERVOUS SHOCK An action lies for nervous shock and bodily illness or disorder supervening on it. orany other category of tort like defamation or malicious prsecution. (a) intenstional wrongding and (b) negligence.
A may have been unaware of the delicate or dangerious state of health of C.A forces his way into a hospital ward and violently abuses and threatens B against whom A has some grievance. and which he should. It may result to a third person. This statement of principle has since been accepted as good law. the liablity will result from an intentioal act by which the actor su bjects another to emotional distress. There may be situations in which it may be proper or even necessary to impart bad news to a person in delicate health such as the death of a close relative and the informant cannot be hdl liable for the consequence. C. C. recognise is likely to result in bodily harm.therefore. hw would not be liable. A will be liable to C. violent and noisy attack on B in the presence of B‟s wife. as a reasona ble man. There was then a justification for his act and he would not commit any breachof duty in actingas hedid. A will be liable to C. sufers a shock. It would not have been open to the defendant in that case to contend that the actual harm suffered by the plintiff was more serious than he intended or expected. but his onduct is so unreasonable that the law makes him responsible for the consequences. . who is pregnant C gets a shock and has a lmiscarrige. In the ward there are patients who are in a dangerous condition and one of them. such an accident to the plaintiff‟s husband and the defendant who happended to know the plaintiff gave her the news. When there is no justification. The harm may result to the person against whom the act is diectd. In both these illustratious.. A makes. On the other hand if there had been in fact.
Her suit against the railway company was dismissed on the ground that it was difficult to say wheter the consequence alleged culd result from the defendants‟ to say whether the consequence alleged could result . (2) A breach of that duty by the deendant and (3) Causal relation between he breach of duty and the damage complained of. and B. In Dulieu V White. as in others. the plaintiff complained of shock and illness due to fear of being killed by a passing train which dashed past her in a level crossing kept open by the negligene of the defendants gate. may not now be regarded as good law. while she and her husband were traveling across in a buggy. resulted in a miscarriage and illness.keeper. thought not actually injured. it is now settled that B can sue A for the harm suffered. a case from Austrlia decided earlier by the Pricy Council. Where A negligently causes fear of physical injury to B. In that case. The contrary from Au view which had been taken in /Victorian Railway Commrs v Colts.Nervous shock caused by Negliene In this class of actions for negligence. suffers shock and illness. the plaintiff must make out three points: (1) A duty oh the part of defendant to take reasonable care towards the plaintiff to avoid the damage cimokau ed if. The fright and shock thereby caused to plaintiff. It was held that she could recover damages for harm due to nervous shock. who was then pregnant. the defendant‟s servants negligently drove a horse van driven by house belonging to the plaintiff‟ a pair of horses with the result that it broke into the public house belonging to the plaintiff‟s husband while she was standing behind the bar.
from the defendants‟ negligence and that if such a claim were allowed. In the above illustration they would be(a) A duty on the part of A towards C to take reasonable care to avoid the harm complained of. If. had alighted from a tram and was unloading her fish . Reasonable care means the care and foresight of a reasonable man and therefore the plaintiff can succeed if he can show that the defendant as a reasonable man should have foreseen the king of damage that actually happened to him. C suffers shock and illness. The Other is King v Phillips. Two cases illustrate this principle. caused physical injury or risk of it to B and by seeing or hearing of it. and it is now well recognized that an action will lie for injury by shock sustained through the medium of the eye or the ear without direct contact. In the first case the plaintiff. a wide door would be opened for imaginary claims. decided by the offside of the driver‟he court of appeal. The crude view that for y shinjury b the law should take cognizance only of physical injury resulting from actual impact has been discarded. The proof of these matters would depend on he facts of the particular case. can C sue A ? He can if he can make out the three requirements of an action of negligence. Nervous Shock Due to Injury or Fear of Injury to Another Person:- Another problem has caused grater difficulty that the one discussed in the last paragraph. a fishwife. and (c) The causal relation between the breach and the said harm. (b) A breach of this duty by a. The first case is Bourhill v Yound. The decision may also be explained by the fact that the connection between mental or nervous disturbqnces and the physical system was not so clearly perceived formerly as it is now with the adv ance of medical science. A by this negligence. decided by the House of Lords.
that they confined themselves to the facts of that case in holding that there was no duty. One of these circumstances was that the cyclist could not have anticipated any injury to the plaintiff. She complained that she sustained a nervous shock by hearing of the noise with the result that..basket from the offside of the driver‟s platform . place a person situated as she was. The House of Lords dismissed her claim on the ground that there was no breach of duty on his part towards her.this is implicit in the decision. and second. being pregnant at that time. There were two matters on which all the Law Lords concurred. As the collision was the result of the cyclist‟s negligence in driving at excessive speed. that incases of nervous shock the question of duty is important and must be answered in the affirmative before that of remoteness is considered. It is however clear. in danger of sustaining nervous shock and illness. A motor cyclist passed the tram on the other side and shortly afterwards he ran into a motor car and sustained injuries resulting in his death. that in the absence of special facts. The reason is that person of normal susceptibility are expected to endure and do . he could not have been expected to foresee that he would by his careless driving. She heard the noise of the collision and also saw blood at the place of the collision where she went after the cyclist‟s body had been removed. a mere onlooker on or near the road cannot complain of shock due to seeing an accident from a safe distance from any chance of injury to himself. she had a miscarriage. The decision cannot however be treated as an authority for an inflexible rule that a person cannot recover for shock due to fear of injury to another due to careless driving unless he was within the area of danger of physical injury to himself. first. In other words. physical or emotional. This is a conclusion of fact which was fully supported by the Circumstances of the case to which the law lords referred in their judgments. as she was beyond the area of potential danger that could arise from his careless driving. the child was still-born and she suffered from physical disorders. she sued his executor for damages.
In King v Phillips. singleton and Hodson JJ. He eventually ran home but his mother had suffered nervous shock for which she claimed damages. The issued in the present case would. took the view that there was no duty on the part of the driver to anticipate emotional shock to the mother who was away from the road. but his mother heard him scream and looking out of an upstair window some 70-80 yards away. In another case in England. The injury to the boy and his tricycle was slight. Both husband and wife were traveling . physical or nervous. decided by the Court of Appeal In England. Denning LJ. to the mother by backing his taxicab careless This again was a conclusion of fact drawn from the circumstances of the case.be in the following form. The issue about duty in an action for negligence is not an abstract issue of law or of a rule of conduct but has reference to the facts of the case. saw the tricycle under the taxicab but could not see the boy. such as the position in which the parties were placed and the harm complained of. Two of he judges. by her happening to see her child being exposed to the risk of bodily harm by his want of care in backing his car. held that there was a b each of duty. The above two decisions rejected the claim of the kind now considered on the ground that on the facts there was no duty to the person who complained of shock from fear of harm to another. However. The Court of Appeal dismissed her claim. they disagreed on the theoretical basis of this conclusion.endure such incidents on the road as the noise of a collision or the sight of injury to others. a taxicab driver negligently backed his taxicab into a small boy on a tricycle. the plaintiff claimed damages for nervous shock due to her hearing of her husband‟s death caused by the defendants negligence. it is submitted. but the damage was too remote because it was not reasonably foreseeable. Whether the driver should have reasonably anticipated emotional shock to a person in the position in which the plaintiff was. The judge agreed that the driver could not have reasonably foreseen an injury.
while she was lying in a hospital and after she recovered consciousness. . She claimed besides damage for personal injury. Could such a claim be made by the plaintiff. Therefore. one of the issues being that of causal relation. damages for nervous shock and consequent bodily ailments.in a car driven by the defendant and on account of his negligence there was an accident resulting in serious injury to her. to a close relative. this decision is not an authority to support an independent claim for damages for shock caused by seeing or hearing of the injury or death of another.. she was told that her husband was killed outright in the accident. serious shock to the wife or mother of the victim of a gruesome tragedy due to his want of care. awarded damages for shock as part of her claim on her cause of action of action for personal injury to herself. a different policy has come to prevail on account of the frequency of motor accidents. suffered nervous shock and depression. The trial judge. In Hinz v Berry the wife who witnessed the accident and saw her husband fatally injury and children hurt. The wife was awarded damages for the illness caused by the shock of witnessing the accident. if she had not herself been injured ? In recent years. While judicial policy rejected a claim for nervous shock as too remote a century ago. Paul J. The principal of liability for negligence according to the authorities is that a reasonable man should have foreseen the harm to the person complaining of it. The plaintiff must establish the necessary chain of causation in fact between his nervous shock and the injury or death of one or more third parties negligently caused by the defendant. The facts in this case suggest a query. the trend appears to be that damages can be given for the nervous shock caused by the sight of an accident. It. There appears to be no reason why a motorist should not be expected to have within his contemplation or foresight. The case-law on this subject has proceeded on the basis of the threefold issue in an action for negligence. at any rate.
allows claims for nervous shock. were held not entitled to damages. Plaintiffs who suffered nervous shock when disaster at a football match was televised liver and in news bulletins. It was held that even though the plaintiff was not at or near the scene of the accident at the time or shortly afterwards. A mere bystander not in the danger zone can not recover. which did not depict the death or suffering o individuals and their identity. As a result of hearing and seeing the result s of the accident he plaintiff suffered severe and persisting nervous shock. When the nervous shock suffered by the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant as a natural and problem consequence of breach of duty of are it was immaterial that a completely normal person would not have suffered the consequences actually suffered by the plaintiff. In the case the plaintiff was at home. The plaintiff was informed of the accident by a motorist and she saw the injured members of her family in the hospital. the nervous shock suffered by her was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendants negligence and was entitled to damages. In Mc Loughlin v O Brain the House of Lords has accepted that the test of liability for damages for nervous shock is reasonable for seeability of the plaintiff being injured by nervous shock as a result of the defendant‟s negligence. The Plaintiff in such cases will have to show a close relationship of love and affection with the primary victim and also that his proximity to the accident was sufficiently close in time and space. One of the plaintiff‟s children was killed immediately and her husband and other two children were severely injured. two miles away from the scene of the serious road accident in which the plaintiff‟s husband and three children were involved.therefore. A person cannot recover damages for an injury not foreseeable in a .
An example of this is a bad practical joke played on someone which triggered serious depression in that person. Definition To amount in law to "nervous shock". It is most often applied to psychiatric disorders triggered by witnessing an accident. for example an injury caused to one's parents or spouse.  it continues to be applied as a useful abbreviation for a complex concept. while courts can also award damages for "pain and suffering" as a result of physical injury. damages can be awarded. If nervous shock results in some recognised psychiatric illness. Damages for bereavement suffered as a result of the wrongful death of a close one are available under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. He was not hurt but suffered magic encephalomyelitis.person of ordinary fortitude. and hence. since they were held to be same kinds of damages. Intentionally inflicted nervous shock It is well established in English law that a person who has intentionally and without good reason caused another emotional distress will be liable for any psychiatric injury that follows. The joker intended to cause the other person emotional distress and will be liable for the medical consequences. The defendant must take his victim as he finds him. It is not foreseeable injury in an ordinary person but it can be foreseen as a personal injury of physical harm. which is a psychIatric illness with which he had earlier suffered. such as anxiety neurosis or reactive depression. Although the term "nervous shock" has been described as "inaccurate" and "misleading". The possibility of recovering damages for nervous shock. damages could be granted for physical or psychiatric injury. The plaintiff was directly involved in a motor accident. particularly caused by negligence. is strongly limited in English law. He suffered the illness as a result of accident. Nervous shock is a term used in English law to denote psychiatric illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. . If foreseeable. the psychiatric damage suffered by the claimant must extend beyond grief or emotional distress to a recognised mental illness. the plaintiff could recover damages.
The existence of a duty of care. "Primary victims" also include rescuers (such as firemen. but the fright from the crash triggers a serious mental condition. i. A breach of that duty.e. An example of this is a spectator at a car race. he must proof of all the elements of the tort ofnegligence: 1. In several decisions. The nervous shock was not too remote a consequence of the breach.e. 4.e. . Primary victims A "primary victim" is a person who was physically injured or could foreseeably have been physically injured as a result of another person's negligence. Such a claimant can recover damages for his car. 3. These control mechanisms usually aim at limiting the scope of the defendant's duty of care not to cause nervous shock. his minor injuries and the nervous shock he had suffered. the nervous shock was the direct consequence of the defendant's breach of duty.Negligently inflicted nervous shock Before a claimant can recover damages for the nervous shock which he suffered as a result of the defendant's negligence. who witnesses a terrible crash caused by negligence on the part of the car manufacturers and develops a nervous illness as a result of his experience. A causal link between the breach and the psychiatric illness. For fear of spurious actions and unlimited liability of the defendant to all those who may suffer nervous shock in one form or other. i. policemen or volunteers) who put themselves in the way of danger and suffer psychiatric shock as a result. the English courts have developed a number of "control mechanisms" or limitations of liability for nervous shock. i. the defendant's actions or omissions in the circumstances fell below what would be expected from a reasonable person in the circumstances. 2. Secondary victims A "secondary victim" is a person who suffers nervous shock without himself being exposed to danger. the duty on the part of the defendant not to inflict nervous shock upon the claimant. It is in these cases where the courts have been particularly reluctant to award damages for nervous shock. as well as at causation and remoteness. An example of this is a claimant who is involved in a car accident caused by the defendant's careless driving and gets mildly injured (or even remains unharmed) as a consequence.
once it is shown that some psychiatric damage was foreseeable. ties of loved and affection must be proved. In other relations. 310 White v. and would usually exclude events witnessed by television or informed of by a third party.C. It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" in the claimant’s position would suffer psychiatric damage.the defendant must "take his victim as he finds him" and pay for all the consequences of nervous shock (see "Eggshell skull" rule). EE Caledonia Ltd. usually described as a "close tie of love and affection". or hearing the event in person. However.C. it seems that such a case is purely theoretic (see McFarlane v. This requires close physical proximity to the event. it does not matter that the claimant was particularly susceptible to psychiatric illness . the more likely it is that he would succeed in this element. where the plaintiff witnessed an explosion of a rig where he and his colleagues worked. as well as spouses and fiancés. 455 and a third House of Lords decision in a case arising from a road traffic accident: . If the nervous shock is caused by witnessing the death or injury or another person the claimant must show a "sufficiently proximate" relationship to that person. However. Such ties are presumed to exist only between parents and children. So a claimant who develops a depression from living with a relative debilitated by the accident will not be able to recover damages.the courts have identified several strict requirements for the recognition of a duty of care not to cause nervous shock. The closer the tie between the claimant and the victim. or viewing its "immediate aftermath". Leading cases Currently leading cases include two House of Lords decisions arising from the Hillsborough disaster: Alcock v. including siblings. as well as causation and remoteness: The claimant must perceive a "shocking event" with his own unaided senses. A mere bystander can therefore hardly count on compensation for psychiatric shock. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police  2 A. but received no compensation). Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police  1 A. unless he had witnessed something so terrible that anybody could be expected to suffer psychiatric injury as a result. The shock must be a "sudden" and not a "gradual" assault on the claimant's nervous system. as an eye-witness to the event.
Development of Nervous Shock . suggesting i. where the House of Lords outlines the concept of "immediate aftermath" of the accident and Attia v. It is known as ‘any recognizable psychiatric illness caused by the breach of Duty by the defendant. For example. it may be arbitrary that a mother who witnesses the death of her child with her own eyes can recover if she develops a mental illness.a.C. where the Court of Appeal considered whether damages for nervous shock as a result of witnessing the destruction of property were recoverable. Please refer to the case of Hinz v Berry. Smith  A. Criticism The current position of the English courts has been criticised as leading to unfair results both in law and from the medical point of view. 155 See also McLaughlin v. Page v. O’Brian  2 All ER 298. Reform has been widely advocated and in 1998 the Pariliamentary Law Commission has drafted a proposal. that the requirements of proximity in time and space to the accident and the "own unaided senses" rule should be abolished. British Gas plc  QB 304. It is not ordinary grief sorrow or anxiety which occurs in normal incidents in life. while one that hears of her child's death on the phone and suffers the same condition cannot. Nervous shock has no definite definition.
a pregnant lady after alighting from a tramcar hear noise of collision and after the accident she went to the spot. The father heard scream and ran to his son to rescue him. Broadman v Sanderson . Second Expansion Ear Shot Doctrine Near relatives who might not have witnesses the accident but was within ‘earshot’ (vicinity) and likely to come upon the scene.. Delieu v White .Nervous Shock produced by fear of immediate physical injury to oneself can claim... Court denied her claim because it was not reasonably foreseeable that someone not closely connected to the victim would suffer nervous shock. It is normal for human to be exposed to such shock Victoria Railway Comm v Coultas . Successfully claim. A lorry without driver running down near her children and she got shock because did not see her child..D injured a young boy while negligently backing his car out of a garage.Initial Stage After the earlier stage the courts rejected liability for nervous shock because i. Bourhill v Young .a mother witnesses a horrifying and tragic accident to her family from the other side of the road – can claim..a mother succeeded in recovering damages for nervous shock produced not for her own safety but for her children’s safety. First Expansion Court develop that damages for nervous shock can be claimed if it is reasonably foreseeable that someone closely connected to victim will suffer nervous shock. It is difficult to diagnosis – not like physical injury ii..a mother saw her daughter was runned down by a lorry. . The only local reported cases. Zainab Bt Ismail v Marimuthu & Anor . Hambrook v Stones Bros. .mere sudden shock unaccompanied by physical injury cannot claim. saw blood spot and got shock. In such a situation the claimant can claim for nervous shock.. It was held that it is reasonably foreseeable that the mother will suffer shock and awarded the claim. Hinz v Berry .
P (16) people suffered nervous shock in the aftermath of a tragedy which occurred at a stadium where 95 spectators were crushed to death and over 400 were injured at a major football match. Trial Judge allows the first 2 claimants but rejected the third one. The above ruling was made.. House of Lords awarded the claim. The House of Lord rejected such claim it does not satisfy the requirement of proximity.Third Expansion Aftermath Doctrine Witnessed the immediate aftermath of an accident in the hospital and suffers nervous shock can recover claim because it is reasonably foreseeable the consequence of D’s negligence even though it is not within the sight and hearing. Some watched in TV at home. Further Development Witnessing events on television at home or heard from radio. ii. ii. Seeing treatment at hospital. Jaensch v Coffey . being at the scene after accident. The court further held that immediate aftermath includes: i. The disaster was covered life in radio and tv. However it is not totally ruled out. iii.. She was awarded damages. In the Court of Appeal: on the issue of witnessing event in TV was dismissed the claim because it does not satisfy the requirement of proximity. i.a mother who stay 2 mile away who heard an accident of her family from neighbor went to hospital and saw her daughter has died and other children and her husband was upset with the death. She suffers nervous shock. But on appeal the House of Lord dismissed all the claims. . Some watched the incident from other side of scene.P suffered nervous shock after seeing the effect of an accident on her husband at hospital.. Mc Loughlin v O’Brian . Other heard from radio or from friends or recorded pictures in TV. Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police .