Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Harm
Shaun Star, Assistant Professor &
Assistant Dean, Jindal Global Law School
@shaunjstar sstar@jgu.edu.in
Introduction
• The tort of intentional infliction of harm to the person
means any intentional act or statement of D which
indirectly causes physical harm or nervous shock to P.
• This tort was created by the case of Wilkinson v
Downton (1897).
• Like trespass to the person it is also an intentional
tort.

The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - Professor Shaun Star

Elements
• There are three elements that P needs to prove to
succeed:
1. D intended to produce injury or nervous shock to P;
2. D’s conduct or statement, in fact, caused injury or
nervous shock to P; and
3. P’s injury or nervous shock was an indirect result of
D’s conduct (here act is intentional but injury is
indirect and therefore writ of trespass and trespass on
the case could not be used).

The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - Professor Shaun Star

Intention to produce harm
• Intention to produce the harm could also be imputed
if the injury or harm was the likely result of D’s
conduct.
• Reckless infliction of injury may also be sufficient.

The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - Professor Shaun Star

Wilkinson v Downton (1897)
• A false statement by D to P that her husband had been
seriously injured had a dramatic effect on P.
• P’s hair turned white and she became so ill that for
sometime her life was in danger.
• The court awarded her £ 100 for nervous shock.
• Wright J., “D … has willfully done an act calculated to
cause physical harm to P, that is to say to infringe on her
legal right to personal safety, and has in fact, thereby,
caused physical harm to her.”

The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - Professor Shaun Star

Other cases:
• Janvier v Sweeney (1919)
• D falsely accusing P of being a spy resulting in severe illness of
P.
• What if:
• P was employed by D.
• P became concerned when D, out of her presence said words
suggesting he would commit suicide.
• P was aware that D kept a gun in his office.
• Shortly after, D fired the gun which P heard.
• P suffered psychological illness due to shock.
• These were the facts in: Bunyon v Jordan (1937)

The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - Professor Shaun Star

Aggressive behaviour and conduct
• See: Wong Kwai Fun v Li Fung (1994)
• Aggressive behaviour and conduct by D, driving P to attempt
to commit suicide twice.

The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - Professor Shaun Star

Is it necessary for the statement to be made in P’s presence
• Where the offending statement is made in P’s presence, D is
liable.
• But D is also liable where the offending statement comes to
P’s knowledge from another source, provided P proves that
D intended and knew that the information would be passed
to P.

The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - Professor Shaun Star

Does the statement need to be false?
• The test is not whether the statement is true or false but
whether D’s statement was calculated to cause injury to P.

The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - Professor Shaun Star

What kind of injury must be proved?
• Physical injury, nervous shock, or any recognised psychiatric
illness.
• Mere emotional distress by itself is not sufficient to ground
an action in this tort. However, liability arises where such
distress results in bodily harm.

The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - Professor Shaun Star

Necessity for this tort
• Wilkinson v Downton principle was created because no
remedy in trespass was available for an indirect harm.
• Nor was any action available in negligence for an act which
was intentional.
• Also no action in deceit was available because the injury to
P occurred before he could act on D’s offending statement
or conduct.

The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - Professor Shaun Star

Thank you
@shaunjstar sstar@jgu.edu.in