top of page
Review Your SQE 1 Practice Records

Examination Timing: 00H01M14S

A lorry careered down a steep hill and crashed into a school after the driver negligently left it unattended at the top of the hill. Emma had just left her daughter at the school but had already turned a corner into the next street when she saw the runaway lorry. Fearing for her daughter's safety, she suffered psychiatric harm when she was told that a girl of similar description to her daughter had been injured, while she rushed to the scene. Would Emma have a claim for psychiatric harm under these circumstances?

< Previous

You have chosen the incorrect answer.

Next >

It would be absurd to deny a mother who sustained psychiatric illness as a result of fearing for her child's safety, when on similar facts a mother could succeed in a claim if, not thinking of her child, she was frightened only for her own safety. In Hambrook v Stokes Bros [1925], it was established that a claimant could recover for psychiatric harm if they perceived the incident with their own unaided senses and feared for the safety of a loved one. Emma saw the runaway lorry and feared for her daughter's safety, satisfying the criteria for claiming psychiatric harm. 


Key Point: The case of Hambrook v Stokes Bros highlights that a claimant can recover for psychiatric harm if they witness an incident with their own senses and fear for the safety of a loved one. This extends the scope of liability for psychiatric harm beyond direct physical impact, recognising the severe emotional distress that can result from witnessing danger to loved ones.

Collect Question

userContent

Study CELE SQE.png
CELE SQE PASS wishes from Lucky Lion_

Ai Content

bottom of page