Top Left Background Top Right Background
Bottom Right Background

Hambrook v Stokes Bros [1925]


  •  A mother allowed her children to walk by themselves, a little way in front of her
  • The defendant’s employee negligently secured a lorry, therefore it rolled down a hill to the corner where the children were walking
  • She feared that her children may have been injured, and coupled with a bystander telling her a child had been injured, shesuffered mental injury


  •  Could people outside the zone of immediate physical danger be owed a duty of care?


  •  Yes, recovery allowed


  •  People outside the zone of danger could recover for mental injury (we’d now call these people secondary victims) for fear for her children’s lives
  • For recovery to succeed, the claimant must have seen the event first hand first hand, not had the event communicated by others in any way


[1925] 1 KB 141

Goto Top
Close Notification

Recent News

Other News