Victorian railway v coultas
victorian railway v coultas
a gate keeper had negligently invited the plaintiff to cross a railway line as a train approached. there was no collision. the plaintiff argued that, as a result of the gatekeepers carelessness, ask had been placed in a situation of 'imminent peril'
the claimant could not recover for psychiatric injury as the relevant harm was too remote
bourhill v young
C (a pregnant fishwife) had no relationship with the motorcyclist who was killed; she did not witness the accident. C 'got in a pack of nerves' the claim failed
king v philips
a mother hears her childs creams and sees their tricycle under Ds car. while reasonable foreseeability of shock was therelevant test according to lord denning, the harm to C was not reasonably foreseeable
mcloughlin v o'brian
Cs husband and three children were involved in a road traffic accident that occured due to Ds carelessness. only one child was killed; Cs husband and the two surviving children were very badly injured. C was told about the accident two hours after it occured. C was taken to the hospital where she learnt of the fatality and saw the survivors
page v smith
car accident of modest severity; C was not physically harmed. after the accident, C fell victim to chronic fatigue syndrome, a condition that affected him for 20 years. C was a primary victim (one directly involved in the accident). because of this the mental injury need njot be reasonably foreseeable