Shock Tactics

26th September 1952, Page 109

26th September 1952

Page 109

Page 109, 26th September 1952 — Shock Tactics

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

When May Witnesses of an Accident Claim Damages for Shock?

By Our Legal Adviser

Essentials in Continental Long-distance Coaches (Contd.)

which seems to meet all requirements is based on a tubular frame, each seat being staggered by about 4 ins. from its neighbour. Soft. headrests, Dunlopillo filling and a means for adjusting the angle to provide at least one resting and one sitting position are essential.

The back of the seat must have a small locker, an ashtray and a rugrail. Interior parcel racks with a high rail to prevent hand luggage from falling are necessary. Individual lighting, apart from the normal interior lights, is desirable, as is a button near each seat to call the stewardess.

Interior Trimming

Side panels and roof should be trimmed harmoniously, for which purpose some of the excellent plastic materials now available, such as Formica, are admirably suited. The floor of the vehicle can to advantage be covered with rubber matting, particularly as by careful fitting, with the matting inserted under the interior side panels, dust can be excluded from the interior.

Afr conditioning—that is temperature control either by introducing hot or cold air into the interior—is not essential for our temperate climate. Besides, the cost of air-conditioning equipment is so high as to make it incompatible with the economy of European transport.

But long-distance vehicles must have a heating system, preferably one which utilizes the heat of the exhaust system by means of a heat exchanger. This is both practical and cheap.

Ventilation Needs

In addition, there must be a ford ventilation system to diffuse fresh air throughout the interior and raise the interior pressure of the body so that smoke and moisture are driven out. The heating and ventilation system need comprise only one fan which can perform both functions by means of a by-pass.

To avoid the effects of the sup, particularly when the vehicle is stationary, the space between the two skins of the roof must be filled with an insulating material.

It is not my intention in stating these requirements to set up standards for bodybuilders. Bodybuilding is a difficult craft and those who follow it know all the secrets. My aim is only to make an operates modest contribution to the development of coaches for long-distance travel.

WHERE an accident occurs " because of someone's negligence, the damages that an injured party may recover may take into account any " shock" effect that the victim may have suffered, in addition to the more serious and obvious physical injuries that accompany accidents. This is not, of course, far-fetched, . because medical science has for many years recognized that a mental condition such as shock is just as " physical " in its ill-effects as is a broken limb.

Within the past 30 years the doctrine has grown up that a person may be able to recover damages for shock sustained through merely seeing an accident, but being in no way involved in it. Logically, there would seem to be no reason why this should not be so, as if someone is to blame for an accident, it would appear to be right that he should foot the bill for any damage caused to other people within certain limits of reason. But it is in defining with any degree of precision what those limits are, that the law finds itself in difficulty.

A mother once saw a runaway lorry charging down a hill towards her without its driver, having just come round a bend where she knew her children were in the road, and she suffered an extreme nervous shock which caused her death from apprehension for the safety of the children. In this case, it was held that damages were recoverable if the apprehension was caused by what she saw, and not by what anyone had told her the lorry had done.

Damages for Shock

In 1939, the Court of Appeal held that a tram company was liable in damages for nervous shock caused to a party of mourners following a hearse which was negligently run into and damaged. The argument against the correctness of the decision was based on the feeling that there ought to be a limit to claims for injury or apprehension of injury, and that it would be absurd that anyone who suffered distaste and horror at an accident caused by negligence could recover damages in the form of money as compensation.

There was a restraining hand laid on the extension of the doctrine in the famous Scottish case of Hay v. Young in 1943, when the House of Lords decided that a motorcyclist was not liable in damages for nervous shock caused to a fishwife about 45 ft. away from the accident which was due to his negligence.

She had heard the noise, but had not seen the accident, but being eight months pregnant, had given birth to a stillborn child because of the shock sustained. She had not been in any fear of injury to herself. Now in a new case—King v. Phillips—the defendant driver succeeded again, but perhaps for a rather different reason.

-Danger Behind The defendant had pulled up his taxi at the side of a street where a small boy was playing on his tricycle, and the boy had spoken to the defendant. So far as the driver was concerned, the boy then disappeared and, having picked up his fare, he glanced behind him and began to back his cab. The small boy was, in fact, -just behind the taxi and was knocked off his tricycle.

The child's . mother was indoors some 70 yds. away when she heard a scream which she identified as that of her child. She saw the taxi backing on to the tricycle and eventually overrunning it, but could not see the boy, whom she met running away from the scene when she rushed into the road. As a result of what she had seen and heard, she suffered a severe shock for which she claimed damages.

Subtle Difference

At first glance it might appear to be so similar as to be indistinguishable from the earlier case of the runaway lorry and the other anxious mother, but here the judge decided that the taxi driver's duty to take care extended only to persons within an"area of reasonable contemplation." Whilst he was negligent in his driving and liable for injury to the little boy and the damage to the tricycle, the mother was too far away to be within that " area."

The test remains as uncertain as ever, for the judge remarked that if he was asked where the line was to be drawn, he would reply that it should be drawn "where in the particular case the good sense of the jury or judge decides."