A defendant who negligently drives into a stationary vehicle owes a duty of care in respect of psychiatric injury to a person in the vicinity of that vehicle, even where the person suffers no physical injury. The foreseeability of psychiatric injury from a near miss is not far-fetched or fanciful. No special limitation beyond ordinary tort principles applies to primary victims claiming nervous shock from a near miss. The question of whether a plaintiff had a pre-existing vulnerability to psychiatric illness goes to damages, not to the existence of the duty of care. A plaintiff's particular susceptibility does not exclude them from the range of normal for duty of care purposes, but post-accident history indicating significant vulnerability may warrant a discount in damages.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.