TORT LAW: PSYCHIATRIC INJURY
Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas (1888) 13 App Cas 222 A Case Summary
What did the defendants argue?
One of the arguments put forward by the Victorian Railway Commissioners was that because the alleged shock that Mary Coultas suffered was brought about without any physical contact, the claim was too remote for them to be expected to pay damages for it.
![Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC (HL)](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/602c86f645658135031d707a/1779246032405-BURGXRMP7HHM6M81NRBX/A+v+CC+SY+1992.png)
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC (HL)
What are the facts of the case?
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire was a test case which arose out of the Hillsborough disaster which occurred at Hillsborough Football Stadium on April 15th, 1989. It concerned claims brought by friends and relatives of people who were injured or killed at the stadium during the incident. Claimants included parents, brothers, brothers-in-law, and unofficial fiancés.
![Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669 A Case Summary ](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/602c86f645658135031d707a/1779245556643-331VBOGJ0MSCTOD4ORXS/D+v+W%26S+1901.png)
Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669 A Case Summary
What are the facts of the case?
The defendant’s servant unintentionally drove a pair-horse van into a pub. The plaintiff, who was pregnant at the time, was in the pub that the defendant’s servant drove the pair-horse van into. She suffered nervous shock and subsequently gave birth to a premature and disabled baby.
In the High Court’s King’s Bench, the court had to decide the following:
Was the driver negligent?
If the driver had been negligent, did his negligence cause the plaintiff nervous shock which led to further bodily injury?