Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 (HL)

Facts

Mr Young was riding his motorcycle negligently when he collided with a car and was killed in the accident. Mrs Bourhill, who was eight months pregnant, was standing some distance away at the time. She did not witness the collision itself but heard the crash and later saw blood on the road.

As a result, Mrs Bourhill suffered nervous shock, which led to the stillbirth of her child. She brought a claim in negligence against Mr Young’s estate, arguing that his negligent driving had caused her psychiatric harm.

---

Issue

The key legal issue was whether Mr Young owed Mrs Bourhill a duty of care in negligence, particularly in relation to psychiatric harm suffered by someone who was not directly involved in the accident.

---

Decision

The House of Lords held that Mr Young did not owe Mrs Bourhill a duty of care. The court found that Mrs Bourhill was not within the area of foreseeable danger and was not someone who could reasonably have been foreseen as being affected by the accident. As a result, her claim in negligence failed.

---

Legal Principle

The House of Lords confirmed that reasonable foreseeability of harm is essential in establishing a duty of care. A defendant will only owe a duty of care to those who are within the range of persons who could reasonably be foreseen as being affected by their actions.

In cases involving psychiatric harm, the courts will take a cautious approach and will not impose liability where the claimant was not closely and directly affected by the defendant’s conduct.

---

Importance

• Demonstrates the limits of the duty of care.

• Confirms that foreseeability depends on the claimant’s proximity to the harm.

• Shows the courts’ reluctance to extend liability for psychiatric harm.

• Helps define who qualifies as a “neighbour” under Donoghue v Stevenson.