Psychiatric injury – still often called “nervous shock” – is one of the most policy-driven areas of negligence. It sits under Novel Duty Situations (Topic 4.1.5) in Paper 4 (Law of Tort) of Cambridge A Level Law 9084, and the syllabus specifically asks about restrictions on liability, policy considerations and possible reforms – perfect material for 25-mark essays.
What Counts as Psychiatric Injury?
The claimant must suffer a recognised psychiatric illness, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, clinical depression or a pathological grief reaction. Ordinary grief, fear, distress or anxiety is not enough (Hinz v Berry (1970)). The illness must also be caused by a sudden shocking event, rather than gradual stress.
Why Is Liability Restricted?
The courts limit claims because of policy concerns known as the “floodgates” argument: fear of a flood of claims, difficulty proving psychiatric illness, the risk of fraudulent claims, and the burden on defendants and insurers.
Primary Victims
A primary victim is someone who was in the zone of physical danger, or reasonably believed they were, and suffered psychiatric injury as a result.
- Dulieu v White (1901) – a pregnant woman suffered shock when a horse-drawn van crashed into the pub where she was working.
- Page v Smith (1996) – where physical injury was foreseeable, the defendant is liable for psychiatric injury even if no physical injury actually occurred, and even if psychiatric injury itself was not foreseeable.
Rescuers are not automatically primary victims: they must be in physical danger or reasonably believe themselves to be (White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1999)).
Secondary Victims and the Alcock Control Mechanisms
A secondary victim is someone who suffers psychiatric injury from witnessing danger or injury to another person. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992), arising from the Hillsborough disaster, the House of Lords set out strict control mechanisms. The claimant must show:
- A close tie of love and affection with the primary victim – presumed for parents, children and spouses; others must prove it.
- Proximity in time and space to the event or its “immediate aftermath” (McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983) – a mother who saw her injured family at hospital about two hours after the accident succeeded).
- Perception with their own unaided senses – watching on television or being told is not enough.
- That psychiatric injury was foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude.
The Supreme Court confirmed the strictness of these rules in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (2024), holding that relatives who witnessed a family member’s death or collapse from an undiagnosed medical condition could not recover in clinical negligence cases, because the death was not an “accident” of the relevant kind.
Policy and Criticism
- The primary/secondary distinction can produce arbitrary results.
- Rescuers and professionals (such as the police in White) may be refused compensation while relatives in similar positions succeed.
- Requiring “unaided senses” looks outdated where people witness events through live broadcasts or phones.
- The “close tie” test can be intrusive when claimants must prove the strength of their relationship.
Possible Reforms
The Law Commission’s 1998 report Liability for Psychiatric Illness recommended removing the requirements of proximity in time and space and perception by unaided senses, while keeping the close tie requirement and a fixed list of relationships where it is presumed. Parliament has not enacted these proposals, leaving reform to the courts – which, as Paul shows, have remained cautious.
Make sure you understand the general duty of care framework first; our guide to negligence: duty, breach and damage covers the Caparo test that psychiatric injury builds on.
Free Paper 4 Past Papers – Download Now
The fastest way to lock in this topic is to practise on real Cambridge questions. Our resource hub has AS and A2 Level Law 9084 past papers for Papers 1–4, with mark schemes, free to download:
→ Download Free A Level Law Past Papers & Mark Schemes
About Sir Owais Mirchawala’s A Level Law Classes
Sir Owais Mirchawala teaches Cambridge International AS & A Level Law (9084) to students across Pakistan and the Gulf. His A2 Level Law course covers Paper 4 topic by topic through recorded lectures you can study at your own pace, with topical past paper practice, class notes, WhatsApp query support, and homework and mock exam marking. Learn more about Sir Owais Mirchawala, explore the A2 Level Law course, read the A Level Law course FAQs, or get in touch to enrol.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a primary and secondary victim?
A primary victim is in, or reasonably believes they are in, physical danger; a secondary victim witnesses harm or danger to someone else.
Can you claim for psychiatric injury after seeing an accident on TV?
Generally no – Alcock requires perception by the claimant’s own unaided senses.
Is grief enough to claim nervous shock?
No. The claimant must prove a medically recognised psychiatric illness, not ordinary grief or distress.
Final Thought
Psychiatric injury essays are won on evaluation. Know the Alcock criteria precisely, then use cases like White, McLoughlin and Paul to argue whether the law is fair and what reform should look like.