[The learned judge then cited cases in which an action was held to lie, where the only physical impact did not accompany but was a consequence of the fright; also a case where there was nothing in the nature of impact and yet recovery was allowed.]
If impact be not necessary, and if, as must be assumed here, the fear is proved to have naturally and directly produced physical effects, so that the ill results of the negligence which caused the fear are as measurable in damages as the same results would be if they arose from an actual impact, why should not an action for those damages lie just as well as it lies where there has been an actual impact? It is not, however, to be taken that in my view every nervous shock occasioned by negligence and producing physical injury to the sufferer gives a cause of action. There is, I am inclined to think, at least one limitation. The shock, where it operates through the mind, must be a shock which arises from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself. A. has, I conceive, no legal duty not to shock B.’s nerves by the exhibition of negligence towards C., or towards the property of B. or C. The limitation was applied by Wright and Bruce, JJ., in the unreported case of Smith v. Johnson & Co., referred to by Wright, J., at the close of his judgment in Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 Q. B. 57, at p. 61. In Smith v. Johnson & Co. (unreported), a man was killed by the defendant’s negligence in the sight of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff became ill, not from the shock produced by fear of harm to himself, but from the shock of seeing another person killed. The court held that this harm was too remote a consequence of the negligence.[[51]] I should myself, as I have already indicated, have been inclined to go a step further, and to hold upon the facts in Smith v. Johnson & Co. that, as the defendant neither intended to affect the plaintiff injuriously nor did anything which could reasonably or naturally be expected to affect him injuriously, there was no evidence of any breach of legal duty towards the plaintiff or in regard to him of that absence of care according to the circumstances which Willes, J., in Vaughan v. Taff Vale Ry. Co., (1860) 5 H. & N. 679, at p. 688, gave as a definition of negligence.
In order to illustrate my meaning in the concrete, I say that I should not be prepared in the present case to hold that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain this action if the nervous shock was produced, not by the fear of bodily injury to herself, but by horror or vexation arising from the sight of mischief being threatened or done either to some other person, or to her own or her husband’s property, by the intrusion of the defendants’ van and horses. The cause of the nervous shock is one of the things which the jury will have to determine at the trial.
It remains to consider the second and somewhat different form in which the defendants’ counsel put his objection to the right of the plaintiff to maintain this action. He contended that the damages are too remote, and relied much upon the decision of the Privy Council in Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas, 13 App. Cas. 222.
The principal ground of their judgment is formulated in the following sentence: “Damages arising from mere sudden terror unaccompanied by any actual physical injury, but occasioning a nervous or mental shock, cannot under such circumstances, their Lordships think, be considered a consequence which, in the ordinary course of things, would flow from the negligence of the gate-keeper.”
Why is the accompaniment of physical injury essential? For my own part, I should not like to assume it to be scientifically true that a nervous shock which causes serious bodily illness is not actually accompanied by physical injury, although it may be impossible, or at least difficult, to detect the injury at the time in the living subject. I should not be surprised if the surgeon or the physiologist told us that nervous shock is or may be in itself an injurious affection of the physical organism. Let it be assumed, however, that the physical injury follows the shock, but that the jury are satisfied upon proper and sufficient medical evidence that it follows the shock as its direct and natural effect, is there any legal reason for saying that the damage is less proximate in the legal sense than damage which arises contemporaneously? “As well might it be said” (I am quoting from the judgment of Palles, C. B., 26 L. R. Ir. at p. 439) “that a death caused by poison is not to be attributed to the person who administered it because the mortal effect is not produced contemporaneously with its administration.” Remoteness as a legal ground for the exclusion of damage in an action of tort means, not severance in point of time, but the absence of direct and natural causal sequence—the inability to trace in regard to the damage the “propter hoc” in a necessary or natural descent from the wrongful act. As a matter of experience, I should say that the injury to health which forms the main ground of damages in actions of negligence, either in cases of railway accidents or in running-down cases, frequently is proved, not as a concomitant of the occurrence, but as one of the sequelæ.