Skip to main content

Dulieu v. White & Sons

 Dulieu v. White & Sons

By: Robin Pandey                                                                        Date: 07/03/2022


The defendant's servant negligently drove a horse van into the public house and the plaintiff, a pregnant woman who was standing there behind the bar, although not physically injured, suffered nervous shock. Consequent upon this, she got seriously ill and gave birth to a child, born an idiot. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages resulting from the aforesaid nervous shock due to the negligence of the servant of the defendants.

Defendant's submissions: No action for negligence will lie where there is no immediate physical injury resulting to the plaintiff. The bodily harm suffered by the plaintiff was, in point of law, too remote a consequence of negligence of the defendant's servant.

Legal Issue: Whether the servant was negligent and whether the plaintiff has good cause of action for damages?

 Court's Observations: In an action for negligence, it must be proved by the plaintiff that: 

(i) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff 

(ii) the defendant made a breach of that duty: and

(iii) the plaintiff suffered damages as a consequence thereof.

Negligence: The servant was negligent for breach of duty to use reasonable and proper care in managing the defendant’s van. The servant owed an identical duty to use reasonable and proper care to all the persons either on the highway or the property adjoining the highway or the persons who like the plaintiff, were lawfully occupying that property. The legal obligations of the driver of the horses are the same towards the man indoors as to the man outdoors. The significant question however was whether there could be an action for nervous shock?

Mental shock: In order to sustain such action it is necessary to prove that resulting damage was a natural and continuous sequence uninterruptedly connecting the breach of duty as to cause and effect. In this case, the negligent driving of the defendant's servant reasonably and naturally caused nervous or mental shock to the plaintiff by her reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily hurt; and that the premature child birth with the physical pain and suffering which accompanied it was a natural and direct consequence of the shock. It was not every nervous shock occasioned by negligence and producing physical injury to the sufferer which would give rise to an action but the shock, where it operates through the mind, must be a shock which arises from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself.

Remoteness of the damages: In the Victorian Rail Case (1888), the Privy Council observed that the damages arising from mere sudden terror unaccompanied by any physical injury but occasioning a nervous mental shock cannot under such circumstances be considered a consequence which in the ordinary course of things, would flow from negligence. The Court differed with the view of the Privy Council and maintained that a claim for damage for physical injuries naturally and directly resulting from nervous shock which is due to the negligence of another in causing fear of immediate bodily hurt is in principle not too remote to be recoverable in law. The Court noted that if this rule was not adopted, it would involve the denial of redress in meritorious cases. 


The suit must be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.


Popular posts from this blog

60 Minute Marriage Counselling Session On Phone

Description A 60 minute phone call with an expert Marriage\Relationship Counselor to discuss your marriage\relationship related issues. Counselling aims to resolve issues and improve communication in a relationship. Couples’ counselling works with both people in the relationship, however sessions can start with one individual, working towards the involvement of the other partner. What's Included a) 60 minute phone call with the counselor where you can discuss all your issues and seek guidance. What's Not Included a) Counselling session via meeting

INCOME TAX SECTION 32AD - Investment in new plant or machinery in notified backward areas in certain States

 Description (1) Where an assessee, sets up an undertaking or enterprise for manufacture or production of any article or thing, on or after the 1st day of April, 2015 in any backward area notified by the Central Government in this behalf, in the State of Andhra Pradesh or in the State of Bihar or in the State of Telangana or in the State of West Bengal, and acquires and installs any new asset for the purposes of the said undertaking or enterprise during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 2015 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2020 in the said backward area, then, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to fifteen per cent of the actual cost of such new asset for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such new asset is installed. (2) If any new asset acquired and installed by the assessee is sold or otherwise transferred, except in connection with the amalgamation or demerger or re-organisation of business referred to in clause (xiii)or cla

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B