Page v Smith established that a defendant owes a duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric injury to primary victims who are within the zone of physical danger, even if no physical injury occurs. The case clarified the distinction between primary and secondary victims in psychiatric injury claims.

This case established strict limits on who can claim for psychiatric injury as a 'secondary victim' following the Hillsborough disaster. The House of Lords set out specific criteria including proximity requirements and relationships to primary victims that secondary victims must satisfy.

House of Lords restricted recovery for psychiatric injury by police officers, requiring them to satisfy the same tests as other secondary victims.

Court of Appeal extended psychiatric injury recovery beyond personal danger to include fear for others' safety, particularly family members.

Early case recognising recovery for psychiatric injury where the claimant was in personal physical danger and feared for their own safety.

The House of Lords extended liability for nervous shock to 'immediate aftermath' situations, allowing recovery by a mother who saw her family's injuries at hospital shortly after a road accident.

The Court of Appeal established that mere emotional distress and fear, without recognisable psychiatric illness, cannot ground a claim in negligence for psychiatric harm.

This case concerned whether an employer was liable for an employee's suicide that occurred as a result of clinical depression caused by a workplace accident. The House of Lords established that employers can be held liable for an employee's suicide if it results from psychiatric injury caused by the original negligence.

A woman claimed damages after allegedly finding a decomposed snail in a bottle of ginger beer, becoming ill as a result. This case established the modern law of negligence and the 'neighbour principle' - that we owe a duty of care to those who might reasonably be affected by our actions.

Rylands v Fletcher established the rule of strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things accumulated on land. This landmark case created a new tort principle that makes landowners liable for harm caused by hazardous substances kept on their property, regardless of fault or negligence.

House of Lords case that relaxed the test for factual causation where the defendant's negligence materially increased the risk of harm that actually occurred.

This case established that employers can be vicariously liable for employees' intentional wrongdoing if there is a sufficiently close connection between the employment and the wrongful acts. The House of Lords held a care home liable for sexual abuse committed by a warden against residents.

Wilkinson v Downton established the tort of intentionally causing physical harm through false statements without direct physical contact. The defendant falsely told the plaintiff that her husband had been seriously injured, causing her severe shock and physical illness, creating liability for intentional infliction of harm.

The House of Lords held that there could be no liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher without an escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant's land, clarifying a key element of strict liability.

Psychiatric injury can be actual bodily harm if more than emotions.

Landmark House of Lords decision establishing that public authorities can owe a duty of care in negligence to individuals who suffer harm as a direct result of the authority's carelessness in exercising statutory functions. The case extended Donoghue v Stevenson principles to public law contexts.

Nervous shock requires foreseeability of harm to person of ordinary fortitude

Rose v Plenty established that an employer can be vicariously liable for an employee's actions even when those actions directly contravene express prohibitions, provided the wrongful act was committed in the course of employment. The case clarified the scope of vicarious liability in tort law.

Extended Goldman v Hargrave to natural land movements, establishing that landowners must take reasonable steps to prevent naturally occurring land slippage from damaging neighbouring property. Confirmed the 'measured duty' principle in English law.

Post-traumatic stress disorder may negate mens rea if it causes a dissociative state

A flooring specialist nominated by the building owner owed a duty of care in negligence for pure economic loss arising from defective workmanship, despite no contract between the parties. The House of Lords extended Donoghue v Stevenson and Anns, finding sufficient proximity based on the specialist's knowledge the floor was for the pursuer's use and reliance on their skill.

Silent phone calls and psychiatric harm can constitute criminal assault and battery

House of Lords case establishing that in medical negligence, claimants must prove causation on the balance of probabilities even where multiple potential causes exist.

Caparo established the modern three-stage test for determining when a duty of care exists in negligence: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. The case concerned whether auditors owed a duty of care to potential investors who relied on company accounts. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 the Supreme Court clarified that the three-stage framework is not a universal test and is relevant only in novel cases.

Defendant liable for victim's unforeseeable reaction to assault

Murphy v Brentwood DC is a landmark House of Lords case that significantly restricted liability for pure economic loss in negligence. The case overruled Anns v Merton and established that local authorities owe no duty of care to building owners for economic loss caused by defective foundations, fundamentally reshaping the law of negligence in construction cases.

Cambridge Water concerned liability for environmental contamination where a leather manufacturer's chemical spillages polluted a water company's borehole. The House of Lords established that foreseeability of harm is required for both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher liability, significantly limiting strict liability for environmental damage.

Unreasonable victim reaction can break causation if unforeseeable and unreasonable.

Malice transfers when defendant intends harm to A but causes harm to B

Provocation does not require sudden loss of temper; delayed reaction possible.

Physical disease affecting brain constitutes insanity if it impairs mental faculties and reasoning.

Distinguished insane automatism from non-insane automatism in criminal defences.

Transferred malice doesn't apply when the type of harm differs from intended

Alcoholism can found diminished responsibility only if disease has damaged brain.

Consent no defence to serious harm in sadomasochistic sexual activities

Voluntary intoxication cannot found a claim of self-defence in any criminal case.

Reasonable person test includes defendant's physical but not mental characteristics.

Defendant liable when reasonably foreseeable that vulnerable victim could suffer harm

Wounding requires breaking of both skin layers, not merely internal bleeding or bruising.