“Nervous shock requires foreseeability of harm to person of ordinary fortitude”
A pregnant fishwife (Mrs Bourhill) was getting off a tram when a motorcyclist (Young) crashed and was killed on the other side of the tram. She heard the impact but did not see it. She later saw blood on the road and suffered nervous shock, leading to a miscarriage.
Whether a duty of care was owed to someone who suffered nervous shock after hearing but not witnessing a road traffic accident.
The House of Lords held that no duty was owed to Mrs Bourhill. Young could not reasonably have foreseen that his negligent driving would cause psychiatric harm to someone in her position.
Bourhill established the foundational test for nervous shock claims requiring reasonable foreseeability. It remains a leading authority on psychiatric harm and the limits of duty of care in negligence.
You're reading the free summary of Bourhill v Young. 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
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
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.