KEJUTAN SARAF

05/11/23 1
 Subtopik
• Definisi kejutan saraf
• Sejarah perkembangan tuntutan kejutan saraf
• Kejutan saraf yg dialami oleh penyelamat
• Rumusan

05/11/23 2
• Undang-undang mengambil pendekatan “restrictive” dalam
membenarkan tuntutan gantirugi bagi kejutan saraf/kecederaan
psikiatrik yang disebabkan oleh kecuaian.

05/11/23 3
• Mahkamah di England telah meletakkan beberapa halangan
yang perlu dilepasi oleh P bagi membuktikan liabiliti di pihak
D.
• Adalah penting untuk membuktikan bahawa memang wujud
“actual psychiatric injury”

05/11/23 4
 Definisi

BRICE V. BROWN
[1984] 1 ALL ER 997

Nervous shock means a mental injury or

psychiatric illness and not simply grief and
sorrow

05/11/23 5
• Lord Denning:
“ In Engllish law, no damages are awarded for grief and
sorrow caused by a person’s death… Damages are, however,
recoverable for nervous shock, or to put it in medical terms,
for any recognisable psychiatric illness caused by the breach
of duty by the defendant.”

05/11/23 6
Definisi- Samb

Dato’ Thirumoorthy a/l Nadesan v Maxis Mobile Services Sd

Bhd
[2012] 2 AMR 485
Fakta kes: As a result of the D’s act in registering a mobile
number in the plaintiff’s name to a third party without the P’s
authorisation or knowledge, the P claimed that he suffered
shock, depression, stress and paranoia as a result of
threatening text messages from such third party.

05/11/23 7
• P sued the D for compensation on the basis of negligence. The D
applied to strike out the P’s claim on grounds that no reasonable
cause of action had been disclosed.
• The issues were (i) whether a reasonable cause of action had been
disclosed in the plaintiff’s statement of claim; and
• (ii) whether mental suffering could amount to an actionable tort,
compensated by damages.
• HELD. Allowing the defendant’s application,
• i)No reasonable cause of action was disclosed in the P’s pleadings.
• ii)The adverse effects of shock, depression, stress and paranoia
suffered by the P amounted to mere mental suffering.
• Mere mental suffering is not sufficient to found a claim for damages.

05/11/23
ATTIA V BRITISH GAS

• Bingham LJ : Her claim is accordingly one for what in the

authorities and literatures have been called damages for
nervous shock. Judges have in recent years become
increasingly restive at the use of this misleading and
inaccurate expression, and I shall use the general expression
‘psychiatric damage’, intending to comprehend within it all
relevant forms of mental illness, neurosis and personality
change.

05/11/23 9
Definisi - Samb

American Psychological Association:

A psychiatric harm is a medically recognised condition of a
sustained nature that disturbs the normal functioning of the
mind. It might or might not be accompanied by overt physical
symptom.
Kebanyakan kes menitik beratkan kejadian fizikal (physical
events) yg membawa kpd post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD)

05/11/23 10
Perkembangan tuntutan kejutan saraf

1.Perlu disertai dgn kecederaan tubuh badan

VICTORIAN RAILWAY
COMMISSIONER V. COUTLAS
(1888) 13 AC 222

05/11/23 11
2.Apabila terdapat tugas utk berhati-hati

kecederaan kejutan saraf boleh dipralihat akibat drp

perbuatan defendan.
•-Jika kejutan saraf tidak boleh dipralihat, tidak
wujud tugas utk berhati-hati.
BOURHILL V. YOUNG

05/11/23 12
 BOURHILL V. YOUNG
Lord Russell of Killowen: In my opinion, such a duty only arises towards
those individuals of whom it may reasonably anticipated that they will
be affected by the act which constitutes the alleged breach... The
appellant was not in my opinion so placed.

Lord Macmillan : The duty is owed to those to whom injury may

reasonably and probably be anticipated if the duty is not observed… She
was not so placed that there was any reasonable likelihood of her being
affected.

05/11/23 13
 • BOURHILL v YOUNG

LORD MACMILLAN:
“The crude view that the law should take cognisance
only of physical injury resulting from actual impact has
been discarded. ..it is now well recognised that an
action will lie for injury by shock sustained through the
medium of the eye, or the ear without direct contact.”

05/11/23 14
• Diputuskan:
P adalah “a distant bystander. Although the D owe a duty of
care to other road users, he did not owe a duty to P because
on the facts, her presence was not foreseeable”.

05/11/23 15
 Samb.

3-Ketakutan utk keselamatan diri sendiri

DULIEU V. WHITE

Held:
“An action could lie in negligence for nervous
shock arising from a reasonable fear for one’s
own immediate safety.”

05/11/23 16
• Kennedy J : There is, I am inclined to think, one
limitation. Shock, when it operates through the
mind, must be shock which arises from a
reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to
oneself

05/11/23 17
• P mendapat gantirugi walaupun tidak
terdapat kecederaan fizikal.

05/11/23 18
• Pendekatan dalam kes Dulieu ditolak dalam kes Hambrook v
Stokes Bros.

• Dalam kes ini diputuskan P boleh dapat ganti rugi atas sebab
ketakutan untuk keselamatan ahli keluarga.

05/11/23 19
 Samb.
4-Ketakutan Untuk Keluarga
HAMBROOK V STOKES BROS.
Seorang ibu mengalami KS selepas menyaksikan lori yang
hilang kawalan melalui tempat yg baru dilalui oleh anak2nya.
Beliau meninggal dunia kerana serangan penyakit jantung.

05/11/23 20
Diputuskan:
“P must suffer, or experience, the shock by means of his or
her own unaided sense; in other words it is not enough
merely to be told of an incident”
P boleh membuat tuntutan bagi ketakutan terhadap
keselamatan keluarga.

05/11/23 21
HAMBROOK V STOKES BROS

• Lord Atkin : The cause of action…appears to be created by

breach of the ordinary duty to take reasonable care to avoid
inflicting personal injuries followed by damage, even though
this type of damage may be unexpected-namely shock.

• Banker LJ : if the shock resulted from her fear of immediate

personal injury to herself or to children derived from what
she saw or realised by her unaided sense and not from what
others subsequently told her, she could firmly recover.

05/11/23 22
• keputusan yg berbeza drp kes HAMBROOK V.
STOKES BROTHERS:
• King v Phillips (1953) 1 QB 429

05/11/23 23
 Samb.

BOARDMAN V. SANDERSON

Bapa kanak-kanak yang berada dalam jarak

“earshot” walaupun “out of sight” dan
mendengar bunyi kereta yang mengundur ke
atas kaki anaknya berjaya mendapat ganti rugi
dari Defendan.

05/11/23 24
BOARDMAN V. SANDERSON

Ormerod LJ : It is clear that a duty was owed by the defendant

not only to the infant but to the father, who were, as he
knew, on the premises, within earshot and likely to come
upon the scene if any injury or ill befell the infant.

05/11/23 25
Samb. BOARDMAN V. SANDERSON

• Defendan mempunyai tugas berhati-hati bukan sahaja ke

atas kanak-kanak tersebut tetapi juga ke atas saudara
terdekat kanak-kanak yang dia tahu berada “within earshot”
dan akan berkejar ke tempat insiden jika apa-apa
kecederaan berlaku ke atas kanak-kanak itu.

05/11/23 26
 Samb.

ZAINAB ISMAIL V. MARIMUTHU &

ANOR (1955) 21 MLJ 22

05/11/23 27
ALasan mahkamah enggan membenarkan
tuntutan utk kejutan saraf
• Mewujudkan ‘flood gates’.
• KING V PHILIPS
• Kesukaran utk menterjemahkan kejutan saraf dlm
bentuk nilai wang.
• Kesukaran membuktikan pertalian antara
perbuatan defendan dgn kejutan yg dialami oleh
plantif.

05/11/23 28
Keadaan di mana tuntutan utk kejutan saraf
dibenarkan
• Plaintif mestilah termasuk dlm golongan atau
kelompok yang boleh dipralihat secara munasabah
akan terimpak dgn perbuatan/ketinggalan
defendan / the plaintiff must be within the range of
foreseable impact of the defencdant’s act/omission.

05/11/23 29
EMOTIONS OF GRIEF AND SORROW ARE NOT
SUFFICIENT TO AMOUNT TO PSYCHIATRIC INJURY

• Hinz v Berry
• Plaintif yang berada di seberang jalan nampak
suaminya terbunuh dan anak-anaknya cedera
akibat kereta Defendan yang hilang kawalan.
Plaintif mendapat ganti rugi.

05/11/23 30
• Mahkamah Rayuan:
• Mahkamah perlu membuat perbezaan di antara
“sorrow and grief” yang mana plaintif tidak boleh
mendapat ganti rugi dengan “nervous shock” dan
“psychiatric illness”.

05/11/23 31
 Samb.

MC LOUGHLIN V. O’BRIEN & ORS

Lord Wilberforce telah menggariskan ujian

‘immediate aftermath’. Terdapat 4 faktor yg
perlu dipertimbangkan dlm mengguna pakai
ujian ‘immediate aftermath’ :

05/11/23 32
 Samb.
1. Kelas orang yg boleh membawa tuntutan – orang
yg membawa tuntutan mestilah mempunyai
hubungan emosi / emotional r/ship dgn mangsa. Lebih
dekat perhubungan ini, lebih berkemungkinan plaintif
akan diberi pampasan;
2. Mesti terdapat kedekatan secara fizikal dgn
kemalangan – walaupun plaintif tidak berada di tempat
kemalangan semasa kemalangan berlaku tetapi
hendaklah melihat kesan segera selepas kemalangan

05/11/23 33
 Samb.

3. Cara kejutan dialami mestilah akibat dari apa yg

plaintif lihat, dengan atau melihat kesan selepas
kemalangan – maklumat yg diberi oleh pihak
ketiga tidak boleh diterima; dan
4. Sakit jiwa yg dialami itu mestilah diakui secara
perubatan sebagai akibat drp kecuaian
defendan.

05/11/23 34
 Samb.

ALCOCK V. CHIEF CONSTABLE OF

SOUTH YORKSHIRE

95 mangsa terbunuh dan 400 cedera dalam tragedy di

Hillsborough Football Stadium. Apa yang berlaku telah
disiarkan secara langsung di TV dan juga diulang
siaran. 16 orang P membuat tuntutan KS terhadap D.

05/11/23 35
• Di peringkat perbicaraan 10 tuntutan Berjaya.
• D merayu terhadap 9 keputusan tersebut.
• Plaintif2 yang tidak berjaya juga membuat rayuan.

05/11/23 36
• COA membuat keputusan di pihak D bagi ke semua
tuntutan.
• 10 rayuan di buat kepada HOL. Plaintif2 termasuklah antara
lain, adik beradik, ibubapa, grandparents dan tunang
mangsa-mangsa yang terbunuh dan tercedera.

05/11/23 37
• Kategori P:
• P yang berada di stadium dan menyaksikan sendiri kejadian,
• P yang menonton secara langsung di TV,
• P yang pergi ke stadium untuk mencari mangsa yang dikenali
• P yang mendapat berita dari pihak ketiga
• P yang terpaksa mengenal pasti mangsa temporary
mortuary at the ground

05/11/23 38
• P menghujahkan bahawa ujian bg menentukan D
mempunyai tugas berhati2 terhadap P adalah sama
ada kecederaan psikiatrik P adalah boleh dipralihat
(as per Lord Bridge dalam McLoughlin)

05/11/23 39
• Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa sebaik saja
foreseeability telah dibuktikan, terdapat 3 elemen
lagi yg mesti dipertimbangkan oleh mahkamah:

05/11/23 40
 Samb.
Elemen (1) –
- Sama ada terdapat perhubungan cinta dan kasih sayang yg cukup
rapat antara plaintif dgn mangsa
Claim for nervous shock may succeed if it is reasonably foreseeable that
the plaintiff will sustain psychiatric illness due to his close r/ship of
love and affection with the primary victim
Hubungan rapat yg diiktiraf :
a. Ibubapa dgn anak;
b. Suami isteri; dan
c. Pasangan yg bertunang
* Berdasarkan fakta kes Alcock, adik beradik tidak termasuk dalam
kategori ini.

05/11/23 41
 Samb.
Elemen (2)
- Mestilah terdapat kedekatan fizikal yg mencukupi kepada
kemalangan yang melibatkan primary victim atau its
immediate aftermath was sufficiently close in time and
space.
Elemen (3)
- Kejutan saraf mestilah diakibatkan oleh menyaksikan atau
mendengar kemalangan atau melihat kesan segera
(immediate aftermath)selepas kemalangan. Pemberitahuan
oleh pihak ketiga spt surat khabar atau televisyen selalunya
tidak diterima

05/11/23 42
Samb.

• Kesemua tuntutan ditolak diperingkat HOL.

05/11/23 43
Jenis Kejutan saraf yang diterima oleh
mahkamah

• Kejutan saraf mestilah penyakit psikiatrik yang

diiktiraf secara perubatan.

05/11/23 44
 Samb.

PAGE V. SMITH(1996)

HOL telah membuat perbezaan antara mangsa utama /primary

victim dengan mangsa sekunder / secondary victim.
Mangsa utama ialah mereka yg terlibat dlm kemalangan
Mangsa sekunder ialah mereka yg tidak terlibat secara
langsung tetapi Cuma menyaksikan kemalangan / tiba selepas
kemalangan. Mangsa sekunder perlu membuktikan hubungan
emotional tie dgn mangsa utama (Kes ALCOCK)

05/11/23 45
• Held:
• Provided some kind of personal injury was foreseeable, it
did not matter whether the injury was physical or
psychiatric. It was enough that P was at risk of personal
injury. There was thus no need to establish separately that
psychiatric injury was foreseeable. The fact that an ordinary
person would not have suffered the injury incurred by the
claimant was irrelevant as the D must take the victim as he
finds him under the thin skull/eggshell skull rule.

05/11/23 46
 Samb.
Lord Lyod : …In conclusion, the following prepositions can be supported:
1. In cases involving nervous shock, it is essential to distinguish
between the primary victim and secondary victim;
2. In claims by secondary victims the law insists on certain control
mechanisms, in order as a matter of policy to limit the number of
potential claimants. Thus, the defendant will not be liable unless
psychiatric injury is foreseeable in a person of normal fortitude. These
control mechanisms have no place where the plaintiff is the primary
victim;

05/11/23 47
 Samb.
3. In claims by secondary, it may be legitimate to use hindsight in
order to be able to apply the test of reasonable foreseeability at all.
Hindsight, however, has no part to play where the plaintiff is the
primary victim;
4. Subject to the above qualifications, the approach in all cases should
be the same, namely, whether the defendant can reasonably
foresee that his conduct will expose the plaintiff to the risk of
personal injury, whether physical or psychiatric. If the answers is
YES, then the duty of care is establish, even though physical injury
does not, in fact, occur. There is no justification for regarding
physical and psychiatric injury as different ‘kinds of damage’; and

05/11/23 48
 Samb.
5. A defendant who is under a duty of care to the plaintiff,
whether as primary or secondary victim, is not liable for damages for
nervous shock unless the shock results in some recognised
psychiatric illness.

05/11/23 49
RE (as child by her mother and litigation friend LE) and others
v Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust
[2017] EWHC 824

Mahkamah membincangkan mengenai primary dan

secondary victim.
RE merupakan penuntut pertama yg dilahirkan di hospital
defendan. Dia membawa tuntutan melalui ibunya (penuntut
kedua) dan neneknya (penuntut keempat). RE menuntut utk
kecederaan tubuh badan akibat drp proses kelahirannya.
Manakala ibu dan neneknya menuntut utk kejutan saraf.
Neneknya hadir semasa ibu RE melahirkan RE. Akibat
kecuaian bidan yg menyambut kelahiran RE, telah
menyebabkan ibu dan nenek RE mengalami kejutan saraf.
Isu: sama ada ibu RE merupakan primary victim;
sama ada nenek RE merupakan secondary victim.
05/11/23 50
Samb.

Held: Ibu RE merupakan primary victim dan psychiatric injury

yg dialaminya termasuk dlm kriteria yg digariskan dlm kes
Page v Smith. Mahkamah juga mengiktiraf hubungan yg rapat
antara nenek RE dgn RE. Walaupun nenek RE merupakan
secondary victim, kedudukan nenek RE juga termasuk dlm
kriteria yg digariskan dlm kes Page v Smith.

05/11/23 51
VERNON V. BOSLEY

• Sebagai secondary victim, plaintif telah memenuhi

keperluan ‘close r/ship dgn primary victim dan proximity
dgn kemalangan

05/11/23 52
Ketakutan kerana menyaksikan
kemusnahan harta benda sendiri

ATTIA V. BRITISH GAS PLC

05/11/23 53
• Diputuskan:
“That damages for pyshiatric damage were not limited to
witnessing a personal injury as a consequence of a D’s
negligence. Damage could be recovered where a P
witnessed the destruction of his home and possessions as a
result of the D’s negligence, provided the P proved
psychiatric damage and not merely grief, sorrow or
emotional distress. Such psychiatric damage must have been
reasonably foreseeable.That was a question of fact to be
decided at trial.

05/11/23 54
Egg-shell skull rule

• Dalam mengaplikasikan ujian pralihat munasabah dalam kes

melibatkan primary victims, mahkamah akan mengambil
kira prinsip “Egg-shell skull rule”

• Maka D mesti mengambil P sebagaimana keadaan P

tersebut. (‘The D must take the P as they find them as
regards physical characterictics)

05/11/23 55
Brice v Brown (1984) 1 All ER 997

• Seorang kanak2 berusia 9 tahun dan ibunya terlibat dalam

kemalangan semasa menaiki teksi. Kanak2 tersebut hanya cedera
ringan namun ibunya mengalami ‘ serious and long lasting nervous
shock’ .
• Ibu tersebut sememangnya mempunyai masalah emosi yang tidak
stabil sebelum kemalangan berlaku.
• Mahkamah mengaplikasikan ujian;
“whether the person of customary phlegm(reasonable fortitude)
would have suffered shock in these circumstances. If not, then the P
would have no claim. If yes, the P could recover for the full extent of
her shock, even if the person of customary phlegm would not have
suffered shock to that extent.”
*this is due to the sensitivity of the P.

05/11/23 56
 Kejutan saraf yg dialami oleh
penyelamat

CHADWICK V. BRITISH RAILWAY

BOARD(1967)

The defendants having been negligent vis-à-vis the

dead and injured passengers, they should have
foreseen the likelihood of someone trying to rescue
them. In the circumstances, it was clearly foreseeable
that such a rescuer might be shocked by what he saw
and the plaintiff should succeed.

05/11/23 57
• In Chadwick; the P had entered a wrecked railway carriage to help
and work among the injured.
• There was clearly a risk that the carriage might collapse.
“The rescuer had passed the threshold of being in personal danger
but his psychiatric injury was caused by the full horror of his
experience, when he was presumably not always in personal
danger.”

05/11/23 58
 Samb

WIGG V. BRITISH RAILWAY

BOARD

It is reasonably foreseeable consequence of that

negligence that the plaintiff might suffer nervous
shock since he was in sufficient proximity to the
accident by hearing it and seeing the aftermath.

05/11/23 59
 Samb.

WHITE V. CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH

YORKSHIRE(1998)

Lord Steyn : …I would too accept that the CHADWICK CASE was
correctly decided. But it is not authority for the preposition that a
person who never exposed himself to any personal danger and
never thought that he was in personal danger can recover pure
psychiatric injury as a rescuer….But in order to contain the concept
of rescuer in reasonable bounds for the purposes of the recovery of
compensation for pure psychiatric harm the plaintiff must at least
satisfy the threshold requirement that he objectively exposed
himself to danger or reasonably believed that he was doing so.

05/11/23 60
• Held:
• D has a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid employees from risk
of physical harm, BUT no duty to protect the Plaintiffs from
psychiatric harm when the Plaintiffs were not exposed to any risk of
physical injury.
• Thus in this case, there could be no duty of care owed to the
Plaintiffs for purely psychiatric harm , as they were not at any point
in any physical danger.

05/11/23 61
• Rescuers adalah secondary victims: tidak mendapat
keistimewaan dalam membuat tuntutan bagi
kejutan saraf/kecederaan psikiatrik.
• Ini termasuklah para sukarelawan atau golongan
professional seperti polis.

05/11/23 62
• Kecuali mereka dapat memenuhi ujian Alcock (berkenaan
secondary victims) atau
• Membuktikan bahawa mereka terdedah kepada bahaya
(yang mana ini akan menjadikan mereka primary victims.)

05/11/23 63
Mount Isa Mines ((1970) 125 C.L.R. 383
(Australia)

• Court observed that the employer’s duty to its employees is not only
limited to physical injury, BUT also extended to cases of psychiatric
injury; without making distinction between primary and secondary
victims.

05/11/23 64
• Bezakan kes White dengan kes-kes:
• 1. Chadwick v BRB (1967) 1 WLR 912
• 2.Hale v London Underground (1992) 11 BMLR 81

05/11/23 65
• Lihat juga kes:
• Cullin v London Fire & Civil Defence Authority
(1999) PIQR 314

05/11/23 66
05/11/23 67