A recent judgement handed down by Judge Emily Egan the High Court in the case of Germaine V Day has reaffirmed the test that needs to be satisfied (in following a previous judgement in case of Kelly v Hennessy) in relation to when a plaintiff is entitled to receive damages arising from nervous shock.
This was a case where a widow suffered what she claimed amounted to nervous shock arising from her husband’s death. The hospital in question admitted that it did not diagnose her husband’s lung cancer at an early stage and that there was a breach of their duty of care .The evidence was however that the delayed diagnosis would not have changed the treatment or prognosis..
The plaintiff claimed that the hospital had a duty to protect her from the psychological impact of her husband’s health sudden deterioration over a number of weeks. The Court concluded that this was not a reasonable duty to impose by any hospital.
The Court held that in order to succeed in a nervous shock case a plaintiff must establish proximity and reasonableness in order for the Court to extend a doctor’s or hospital’s duty of care to relatives of that patient.
The Court pointed out that the husband’s decline over a number of weeks was not a “sudden shocking” event such as to bring the plaintiff within an entitlement to claim damages.
The Court went on to say that even if there was proof of a “sudden shocking” event this was not caused by the hospital but was caused by factors other than the negligence of the hospital i.e. the husband’s decline over a number of weeks.
The Court held that the hospital did not have a duty of care to the plaintiff simply because she was her husband’s spouse.
This case illustrates the difficulty in plaintiffs proving nervous shock cases and provides further clarity in the law in this regard.
For further information an any litigation matter, please do not hesitate to contact Donna Phelan and Brendan Dillon on 01 2960666.
