Facts
- 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
Issue
- Could people outside the zone of immediate physical danger be owed a duty of care?
Decision
- Yes, recovery allowed
Reasoning
- 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
Citation
[1925] 1 KB 141
