Hinz v Berry – 1970

March 05, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s):


The landmark case of Hinz v Berry (1970) significantly impacted the landscape of tort law concerning negligence and recoverable damages. It addressed the controversial issue of whether a bystander who witnesses an accident but suffers no physical injury can claim compensation for psychiatric illness (nervous shock). The court’s decision expanded the scope of recoverable damages, paving the way for future claims based on purely psychological harm.

Facts of the Case

While on a family outing, the Hinz family’s parked car was struck by Mr. Berry’s vehicle. Witnessing the accident unfold, Mrs. Hinz watched helplessly as her husband perished and her children sustained injuries. Though physically unharmed herself, Mrs. Hinz developed severe and lasting depression diagnosed as “morbid depression.” Seeking compensation for her psychological suffering, she brought a claim against Mr. Berry for negligence.

Legal Issue(s)

The central legal question was whether Mrs. Hinz, as a bystander without physical injury, could recover damages for the nervous shock-induced depression. Key considerations included:

  • Did the “direct witnessing” requirement for bystander claims apply in this case?
  • Was the type and severity of Mrs. Hinz’s psychiatric illness recognized as compensable harm?
  • Did the close familial relationship to the accident victims play a role in determining eligibility for damages?


The Court of Appeal found in favor of Mrs. Hinz, allowing her to claim damages for her nervous shock. Their reasoning hinged on several points:

  • The “direct witnessing” requirement was fulfilled as Mrs. Hinz saw the accident unfold at close proximity.
  • The court recognized “morbid depression” as a medically recognized psychiatric illness, fulfilling the criteria for compensable harm.
  • The close familial relationship between Mrs. Hinz and the accident victims was deemed sufficient to establish the necessary proximity for awarding damages.

Ratio Decidendi

This case established a crucial legal principle: a bystander who witnesses an accident and suffers a medically recognized psychiatric illness as a direct result can claim damages for nervous shock, even without physical injury. The court emphasized the need for a close relationship between the bystander and the accident victims to limit potential liability.

Obiter Dicta

While the court provided clear guidelines for bystander claims based on nervous shock, some judges expressed concerns about potential future expansions of liability and the difficulty in drawing clear lines.

Impact and Significance

Hinz v Berry significantly impacted tort law by:

  • Establishing a precedent for bystander claims based on purely psychological harm.
  • Broadening the scope of recoverable damages in negligence cases.
  • Highlighting the importance of recognizing medically recognized psychiatric illnesses.

The case has been influential in subsequent judgments but also attracted criticisms regarding potential abuse and difficulties in assessing genuine claims. Nonetheless, it remains a cornerstone in recognizing compensable psychological harm stemming from witnessed traumatic events.


Hinz v Berry marked a turning point in negligence law, paving the way for bystander claims based on nervous shock. While subsequent developments have refined the specific requirements, the case’s core principle of recognizing and compensating genuine psychological harm suffered due to witnessed trauma continues to hold significant legal and social relevance.

Why Choose Us:

Report Writing Services offer expert assistance in crafting high-quality reports for academic, professional, or business purposes. With meticulous attention to detail and specialized expertise, they ensure accuracy and clarity in all types of reports. Their services are invaluable for achieving success in various fields, from academia to corporate environments.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Hinz v Berry – 1970' (Mylawtutor.net, September 2012 ) <https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/hinz-v-berry-1970> accessed 17 April 2024
My, Law, Tutor. (September 2012 ). Hinz v Berry – 1970. Retrieved from https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/hinz-v-berry-1970
"Hinz v Berry – 1970." MyLawTutor.net. 9 2012. All Answers Ltd. 04 2024 <https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/hinz-v-berry-1970>.
"Hinz v Berry – 1970." MyLawTutor. MyLawTutor.net, September 2012. Web. 17 April 2024. <https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/hinz-v-berry-1970>.
MyLawTutor. September 2012. Hinz v Berry – 1970. [online]. Available from: https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/hinz-v-berry-1970 [Accessed 17 April 2024].
MyLawTutor. Hinz v Berry – 1970 [Internet]. September 2012. [Accessed 17 April 2024]; Available from: https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/hinz-v-berry-1970.
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url=https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/hinz-v-berry-1970 |title=Hinz v Berry – 1970 |publisher=MyLawTutor.net |date=September 2012 |accessdate=17 April 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Dick Bentley v Harold Smith The world of contracts can be a complex one, especially when it comes to the interpretation of statements made during negotiations. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] stands as a significant case in English contract law, offering valuable insights into the distinction between a […]

Performance Cars v Abraham

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Performance Cars v Abraham Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham (1962) stands as a landmark case in English tort law, specifically regarding the concept of causation in negligence claims. This case study delves into the factual background, the legal issue at stake, the court’s decision and reasoning, and the lasting impact of the case […]

R v Hennessy – 1989

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to R v Hennessy – 1989 The criminal justice system grapples with complex issues when a defendant’s actions seem involuntary due to a medical condition. R v Hennessy (1989) stands as a significant case in English law, delving into the boundaries of the defense of automatism in the context of diabetic hypoglycemia. This case […]

go to top