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.