MV – Study Notes – Tort – Topic – 4 – Nervous Shock Page 1 MV– Study Notes – Tort – 4 : Nervous Shock TORT : TOPIC – 4 : Nervous Shock A. Introduction: a) Nervous Shock is a shock to nerve and brain structures of the body. It is a term used to denote psychiatric injury or illness, inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. It is most often applied to psychiatric disorders triggered by witnessing an accident, for example an injury caused to one's parents or spouse. b) Medical Definition: In medicine, circulatory failure marked by a sudden fall of blood pressure and resulting in pallor, sweating, fast (but weak) pulse, and sometimes completes collapse. Its causes include disease, injury, and psychological trauma. In shock, the blood pressure falls below that necessary to supply the tissues of the body, especially the brain. Treatment depends on the cause. Rest is needed, and, in the case of severe blood loss, restoration of the normal circulating volume. c) Nervous Shock, being a relatively new area of tort, has gained much importance. It is used to describe a claim where the claimant might claim for financial compensation even though he/she has not suffered any apparent physical injury. d) As our Legal systems follow common law principles, especially In the absence of any codified branch of law, and also in the absence of any significant set of cases from Indian courts as judicial precedents, we need to look at the history, development and current status of this branch law of torts for a better understanding. e) For a claim of nervous shock, the claimant will have to demonstrate on the basis of medical evidence, that he has a recognisable psychiatric illness or disorder. The types of psychiatric illnesses that are likely to form the basis of claims include, post-traumatic stress disorder, depressive disorders, adjustment disorders and anxiety disorders. However, as seen in Hinz v Berry, a person who suffers from extreme grief and sorrow, but which falls short of a recognised psychiatric illness is not able to recover damages, as one is expected to be able to deal with grief and sorrow. f) Nervous Shock cases may arise out of intentional acts of commission or omission, or unintentional or Negligent acts of commission or omission. g) In case of intentional acts it is not even necessary to prove malice. In the case of Wilkinson v Downston (1897) 2 QB 57, as a practical joke, Mr Downton told the plaintiff Mrs Wilkinson. that her husband has been seriously injured in an accident and was lying in a ditch with broken ďoŶes. The effeĐt of DoǁŶtoŶs stateŵeŶt ǁas a ǀioleŶt shoĐk to heƌ nervous system resulting in weeks of suffering and incapacity. Wilkinson sued. The trial court found in her favour. Downton appealed on the grounds that damage was merely nervous shock out of a practical joke and there was no cause of action. The appeal court held that a party can recover for outrageous conduct that causes physical harm or mental distress. h) But it is the cases relating to unintentional or negligent acts that has given rise to an enormous body of judicial precedents that has seen a path of evolution with so many twists and turns of befuddling and inconsistent variations of rules and exceptions to the rules and so on. Added to this is the aƌguŵeŶts of flood gates aŶd puďliĐ poliĐy that have also played a role in this evolution of judicial precedents dealing with the subject of nervous shock.