Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1887 |
| Date | 1887 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Negligence - Nervous Shock resulting from Fright - Damages too remote.
Damaged in a case of negligent collision must be the natural and reasonable result of the defendants' act; damages for a nervous shock or mental injury caused by fright at an impending collision are too remote.
The Notting Hill (
Where the gate-keeper of a railway company had negligently invited the plaintiffs to drive over a level crossing when it was dangerous to do so, and the jury, although an actual collision with a train was avoided, nevertheless assessed damages for physical and mental injuries occasioned by the fright:—
Held, that the verdict could not be sustained, and that judgment must be entered for the defendants.
Quære, whether proof of “impact” was necessary to maintain the action.
APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court (Dec. 14, 1886), entering judgment for the plaintiffs in two several sums of £342 2s. and £400, and costs of action. The facts of the case and the proceedings in the action are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
Cohen, Q.C., and Gurner (Finlay, Q.C., with them) for the appellants, contended that the damages claimed were too remote. Damages could not be recovered for mental injuries caused by negligent acts of the appellants when there was an absence of all physical damage caused by the appellants' negligence. The liability is for the ordinary and immediate consequences of negligence. A mere nervous shock caused by fright of an impending event which never happens results from the constitution and circumstances of the individual, and does not give a cause of action, to support which there must be physical injury directly resulting from the negligent act or omission. Reference was made to The Notting HillF1; Huxley v. BergF2.
Gainsford Bruce, Q.C., and Archibald, for the respondents, contended that proof of impact was not necessary to support the action. The negligent acts of the defendants necessarily caused great fright at the serious imminence of a collision. Both physical and mental injuries resulted, and the jury were right in awarding damages therefor. Reference was made to Jones v. BoyceF3, distinguishable from Huxley v. BergF2; Sneesby v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyF4. [SIR BARNES PEACOCK referred to Boyle v. BrandonF5 as to remoteness of damages.] Hill v. New River CompanyF6; Vandenburgh v. TruaxF7; Mortin v. ShoppeeF8.
Cohen, Q.C., replied.
[1888 Feb. 4.] The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
SIR RICHARD COUCH: —
The respondents brought a suit against the appellants in the Supreme Court of the colony of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W v Minister for Health and Children
......criticised the decision of the Privy Council in Victorian Railways Commissioner v. Coultas (1888) 13 Appeal Cas 222 (PC), an ......
-
Warren Harford v Electricity Supply Board
...Irish Court of Appeal refused to overturn the verdict. 20 . In 1888, some four years later, Victorian Railway Commissioners v. Coultas [1888] 4 TLR 286 was decided by the Privy Council in England. Due to the negligence of the employees of the railway company, gates at a level crossing were ......
-
Fletcher v Commissioner of Public Works
...Co. ofIreland and refused to follow a Privy Council decision to the opposite effect in the Victorian Railway Commissioners v.Coultas 13 App. Cas. 222. The Bell case hasbeenregarded as seminal and has been cited in subsequent Irish, English and Australian courts. It should be noted in passi......
-
Wainwright v Home Office
...to recover at all for "nervous shock". That had been doubted in the Privy Council case of Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas (1888) 13 App Cas 222, but the Court of Appeal recognised that if they were to accept that argument they would have to differ from Wilkinson v Downton, which ......
-
Sticks, Stones and Words: Emotional Harm and the English Criminal Law
...tort the distinction is not uniformly observed, as Teff pointsout: above n. 13 at ch. 4.38 Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas (1888) 13 App Cas 222.39 As where the trauma was intentionally inflicted (Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB57), or where the claimant reasonably sustained fear......
-
Table of Cases
...143, Lofft, 631, 98 ER 1012 106, 120 Vegelahn v Guntner 167 Mass 92, 44 NE 1077 (1896) 380 Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas (1888) 13 App Cas 222, 57 LJPC 69, 58 LT 390, 52 JP 500, 37 WR 129, 4 TLR 286, PC 25, 36 Wagon Mound, The (No 1) [1961] AC 388, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 All......
-
A tort of invasion of privacy in Australia?
...Unfair Publication, above n 152, 118. (210) [2004] VSC 113 (Unreported, Gillard J, 7 April 2004) [293]. (211) [2004] 2 AC 406. (212) (1888) 13 App Cas 222 ('Coultas'). (213) Janvier v Sweeney [1919] 2 KB 316. (214) [2004] 2 AC 406, 425. (215) Ibid. (216) [1897] 2 QB 57, 58-9. (217) Ibid 59.......
-
Re-establishing the Search for Principle Lord Goff's Dissent in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455
...to satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms. The facts of the 16 Above, n 4, at p 408B. 17 In Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas (1888) 13 App Cas 222. 18 These policy factors were set out and discussed by Lord Steyn, above, n 1, at pp 493–494. 26 Part I – Tort Law Hillsborough disaster......