“Negligence claims require recognisable psychiatric illness, not mere emotional distress or fear.”
Mr and Mrs Reilly were trapped in a hospital lift for over an hour in claustrophobic conditions. They suffered emotional distress, fear, and some physical symptoms but no diagnosable psychiatric illness. They sued the hospital for negligence claiming damages for their distress.
Whether damages could be recovered in negligence for emotional distress and fear without proof of a recognisable psychiatric illness or condition.
The Court of Appeal ruled against the Reillys. No damages were recoverable as they had not suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness.
This case established the fundamental requirement that psychiatric harm claims must involve recognised medical conditions, not just emotional upset. It remains the leading authority on the threshold for psychiatric harm in negligence and is essential for understanding the policy limitations on such claims.
You're reading the free summary of Psychiatric Harm — Reilly v Merseyside Regional Health Authority. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Reilly v Merseyside Regional Health Authority [1994] 23 BMLR 26
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.