Ravenscroft v Rederiaktiebologet Transatlantic
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 March 1991 |
| Date | 26 March 1991 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Ward
Negligence - remoteness - damages for nervous shock
A mother so distraught by the circumstances of the death of her son in an industrial accident, although she had seen neither the accident nor her son in hospital, was entitled to damages for the recognisable psychiatric condition which she suffered as a result, there being no public policy issue which prevented such recovery.
Mr Justice Ward, sitting as an additional judge of the Queen's Bench Division, so held when awarding agreed damages of £16,500 to the plaintiff, Mrs Florence Ravenscroft, in settlement of her claim for nervous shock against Rederiaktiebologet Transatlantic, the defendant employers of her son.
Mr Allan Gore for the plaintiff; Mr Michael Bowerman for the defendants.
MR JUSTICE WARD said that the plaintiff was crushed by a runaway fork-lift truck belonging to the defendants, his employers. His mother neither saw the accident nor was present at his death in hospital and did not see his body immediately afterwards.
However, she immediately became deeply depressed as a result of the grief. Her consultant psychiatrist found her mood very low; she was barely able to function. She cooked and cleaned but without interest. She often spent a lot of the day in bed or sitting doing nothing, her sleep pattern was still grossly disturbed, her appetite was not good and she had lost at least a stone in weight.
Both psychiatrists agreed that she was not a lady of undue sensitivity, but was of reasonable fortitude. Both agreed that she suffered a prolonged grief reaction, as defined in the International Classification of Disease Code 309.1, (HMSO 924 154 0044 and 924 154 0052) namely, a prolonged depressive reaction which was not specifiable as manic depression but which might be psychotic or neurotic and might be long lasting.
That psychiatric illness was caused by the defendants. If as urged inAttia v British Gas plcELR ([1988] 1 QB 304) the court ceased to use the inaccurate and misleading expression "nervous shock", then his Lordship saw no reason why some notion of shock, especially one which was not to be understood in terms of "recognisable psychiatric illness" (McLoughlin v O'BrianELR ([1983] 1 AC 410) was to be reintroduced as an element in the chain of causation.
The correct proposition was as stated by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, in Hinz v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
...by a third party. On that basis it is open to serious doubt whether Hevican v. Ruane [1991] 3 All E.R. 65 and Ravenscroft v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic [1991] 3 All E.R. 73 were correctly decided, since in both of these cases the effective cause of the psychiatric illness would appe......
-
Pang Koi Fa v Lim Djoe Phing
... ... Alcock , was subsequently followed in the Court of Appeal in Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic v Ravenscroft , where the court in considering the remarks that had been made in Alcock , ... ...
-
Leonard (Martha Elizabeth Philomena) v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Ministry of Defence
...each of the recent decisions at first instance of Hevican v Ruane [1991] 3 All ER 65 andRavenscroft v Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic [1991] 3 All ER 73 is open to serious doubt. (3) Mere mental suffering, although reasonably foreseeable, if unaccompanied by physical injury, is not a basis......
-
Copoc et al. v. Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, (1991) 131 N.R. 194 (HL)
...417, consd. [para. 7]. Hevican v. Ruane, [1991] 3 All E.R. 65, not apprvd [para. 7]. Ravenscroft v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, [1991] 3 All E.R. 73, not apprvd [para. Hambrook v. Stokes Bros., [1925] 1 K.B. 141, dist. [para. 18]. McKew v. Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd......
-
Table of Cases
...See Kane v Radley-Kane Ransomes Plc, Re [1999] 2 BCLC 591, CA 127 Table of Cases xxxiii Ravenscroft v Rederiaktiebølaget Transatlantic [1991] 3 All ER 73, (1991) 141 NLJ 600 188 Raymond Burke Motors Ltd v The Mersey Docks and Harbour Co [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 155 94 Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1......
-
The Banker's Perspective Lord Millett's Dissent in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12, [2002] 2 AC 164
...Twinsectra ? Well, perhaps, to borrow a phrase from the judgment of Ward J in the case of Ravenscroft Rederiaktiebølaget Transatlantic [1991] 3 All ER 73 at 76, it will be a battered treasure, certainly from the perspective of Mr Leach. 49 And, of course, ignoring the issues of (apparently)......