Facts
In this case the plaintiff, Bourhill, a fishwife who was eight months pregnant, alighted from a train and was retrieving her fish basket from the driver’s platform when she heard a collision between a motorcyclist and a motor car, approximately 45 to 50 feet away. After the motorcyclist’s body was removed, Bourhill approached and saw blood left on the roadway. She sustained nervous shock, which disabled her from carrying on business for some time, and subsequently lost her child. Bourhill sued for damages for nervous shock caused by the incident.
Issue
The key issue was whether the deceased motorcyclist, who was found to be negligent, owed Bourhill a duty of care in relation to the nervous shock she suffered.
Holding
The House of Lords dismissed the action, ruling that the motorcyclist did not owe Bourhill a duty of care. It was not reasonably foreseeable that someone in her position would suffer injury from the motorcyclist’s negligent driving. Lord Russell stated, “such a duty [of care] only arises towards those individuals of whom it may be reasonably anticipated that they will be affected by the act which constitutes the alleged breach” (at AC 102). Lord Wright further noted, “I cannot accept that John Young could reasonably have foreseen, or, more correctly, the reasonable hypothetical observer could reasonably have foreseen, the likelihood that anyone placed as the appellant was, could be affected in the manner in which she was” (at AC 111).
