Hambrook v Stokes Brothers
A mother who suffered nervous shock from fear for the safety of her children, caused by seeing a runaway lorry, could recover damages.
Facts
Mrs Hambrook had just walked her children to the bottom of a steep street on their way to school, and was walking back up, when she saw a lorry, which had been left with its engine running by the defendants' driver, running away down the hill, out of control, towards where she had left her children. She did not see the lorry hit anyone, but was told by bystanders that a child matching her daughter's description had been injured. She suffered severe shock, and died.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held, by a majority, that her husband could recover damages. Bankes LJ said that it would be absurd to allow a mother to recover for shock caused by fear for her own safety, but not for shock caused by fear for her children. The shock was caused by what she saw with her own eyes, rather than by what she was told. The case extended the law beyond Dulieu v White.
Related cases on psychiatric injury
- Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310
- Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13, [2004] 1 WLR 1089
- Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
- Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912
- Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669
- Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 1 WLR 1970
- Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76, [2002] ICR 613
- McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
