Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 (QB)
Court: Queen's Bench
Facts: Mr. Downton, a regular customer of the Albion public house, played a cruel practical joke on Mrs. Wilkinson, the wife of the landlord, Thomas Wilkinson. While Mr. Wilkinson was away, Downton falsely informed Mrs. Wilkinson that her husband had been severely injured in an accident, suffering two broken legs, and was at The Elms in Leytonstone. He advised her to bring a cab and two pillows. The false information caused Mrs. Wilkinson extreme distress, leading to severe physical and mental symptoms, including vomiting and her hair turning white. Mrs. Wilkinson sued Downton for damages.
Issue: Whether the false statement made by Downton, which caused severe mental and physical distress to Mrs. Wilkinson, constituted a tortious act and if so, what damages were recoverable.
Held: Mr. Justice Wright established a new cause of action for the intentional infliction of mental shock. He held that Downton's actions, although not fitting into traditional categories of torts like battery or assault, constituted a tort because they were intended to and did in fact cause harm. The court awarded Mrs. Wilkinson £100 in damages for the distress and additional costs she incurred. Wright J emphasized that the tort required the defendant to intentionally act in a manner calculated to cause harm, and that actual harm must result from such actions.
Key Judicial Statement: Mr. Justice Wright stated, “The defendant’s act must be one calculated to cause harm, and that harm must actually result from it.” This statement set the foundation for the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock, highlighting that the tort requires both intent to cause harm and actual harm resulting from the act.
💡 LevelUpLaw: Wilkinson v Downton was groundbreaking for introducing the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock, recognizing that severe mental and physical distress caused by intentional acts could be actionable. The ruling established that intentional acts calculated to cause harm, resulting in actual harm, are sufficient for a claim. Subsequent cases have refined this tort, emphasizing that claims must involve recognized psychiatric injuries and clear intent to cause distress. The case underscores the balance between protecting individuals from intentional harm and maintaining legal clarity in tort claims.