Facts
- Mrs. Hinz witnessed a car accident in which her husband was fatally injured and several of her children and children for whom she was responsible were harmed.
- The accident occurred during a family outing when the defendant’s car crashed into their parked vehicle.
- Mrs. Hinz did not suffer physical injury herself but witnessed the accident, its immediate aftermath, and the distress caused to her family.
- As a result of these events, Mrs. Hinz developed long-term 'morbid depression,' a recognized psychiatric illness.
- Her psychiatric harm arose directly from witnessing the scene, not from ongoing stressors.
- Mrs. Hinz brought a legal claim for compensation for psychiatric injury.
- The Court of Appeal considered the award of damages appropriate and declined to disturb the trial judge's determination.
Issues
- Whether a duty of care could be owed to a person who suffers recognized psychiatric injury (but no physical injury) as a result of witnessing a traumatic event caused by another’s negligence.
- Whether psychiatric harm such as 'morbid depression,' distinct from grief or sorrow, is compensatable in negligence claims.
- Whether the defendant’s negligence made it reasonably foreseeable that psychiatric injury could be sustained by a secondary victim such as Mrs. Hinz.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal affirmed that Mrs. Hinz was entitled to compensation for her psychiatric injury.
- It was held that it was reasonably foreseeable that someone witnessing such a traumatic event might suffer psychiatric harm due to the defendant’s negligence.
- The judges distinguished between recognized psychiatric illness and ordinary non-clinical grief or sorrow, holding that only the former is compensatable.
- The court emphasized that the psychiatric harm suffered fell within the scope of what was reasonably foreseeable, imposing a duty of care.
- The award of damages for the psychiatric injury was upheld.
Legal Principles
- A duty of care can be extended to individuals who suffer recognized psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing a traumatic event, even if not physically injured.
- Compensation for psychiatric injury requires that the harm be a clinically recognized illness, not mere emotional distress.
- The law differentiates between primary victims (directly involved in the accident) and secondary victims (witnesses or bystanders), applying stricter criteria for the latter.
- For secondary victims to recover, the psychiatric harm must result from a sudden shock and satisfy additional requirements such as close ties of love and affection, direct perception of the event, and proximity in time and space.
- The consequences of negligence may include both physical and psychiatric harm if such harm is reasonably foreseeable.
Conclusion
Hinz v Berry established that secondary victims who suffer recognized psychiatric illness from witnessing traumatic events may claim for negligence, provided stringent criteria are met; this case remains central to the development of law concerning psychiatric injury in tort.
