Wilkinson v. Downton
Rule established
Deliberate conduct calculated to cause, and which does cause, psychiatric or physical harm through nervous shock is actionable, independent of physical contact.
Facts
- The defendant, purporting to play a practical joke, falsely told the plaintiff that her husband had been seriously injured in an accident. The statement was entirely false. The plaintiff suffered genuine, severe nervous shock, resulting in recognisable physical and psychiatric symptoms. She sued the defendant for the resulting harm.
Issue
- Whether deliberately making a false statement calculated to cause, and which does cause, severe nervous shock is actionable absent any physical contact.
Held
- The defendant's conduct was specifically calculated to produce psychological distress. It did in fact cause genuine, recognisable harm. Liability arose despite the complete absence of any physical contact whatsoever. Requiring physical contact would have left a genuinely injured plaintiff without remedy purely because the harm was inflicted through words.
Ratio Decidendi
Deliberate conduct calculated to cause, and which does cause, physical or psychiatric harm through nervous shock constitutes an actionable tort, independent of any physical contact between the parties.
How to use it in an exam
- Key line: "In Wilkinson v Downton (1897), the court held that deliberately causing nervous shock through a false statement, resulting in genuine harm, is actionable independent of physical contact."
- This is the foundational authority for intentional infliction of nervous shock, distinct from the later negligence-based primary/secondary victim framework (McLoughlin, Alcock).
Source
Source: [1897] 2 QB 57
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Law of TortsNervous ShockFoundational authority establishing liability for deliberately caused psychiatric harm absent physical contact