South Africa: Liability For Emotional Shock

Last Updated: 12 July 2002

Where Do We Draw The Line?

The Supreme Court of Appeal recently considered the question of liability for emotional shock and resulting detectable psychiatric injury in the matter of Road Accident Fund v Sauls 2002 (2) SA 55 (SCA).

On 18 March 1994, Stephen Sauls parked his motorcar, a BMW, in a parking bay in Adderley Street, Cape Town. He was accompanied by his fiancée, Magdelene Jackson, the plaintiff in the action. The couple did some shopping during the lunch hour and returned to the motor vehicle. The plaintiff got in and sat in the front passenger seat.

Sauls intended to get into the driver's seat. However, he saw a truck driven by one Sadick approaching his vehicle from the back in its designated traffic lane, that is the lane next to the parking bays. Sauls saw that due to the size and proximity of Sadick's vehicle, it would not be opportune at that moment to open the door on the driver's side and get into his car. He then leaned against the car with the front part of his body pressed against the door waiting for the vehicle to pass. However, in spite of this precaution, he was struck by the vehicle. He was thrown forward and landed in front of the BMW.

The plaintiff saw the collision from her spot in the passenger's seat and rushed to his aid. Bystanders warned her not to touch or move his body for fear of a spinal injury. They also remarked on the deathly pallor of his face. The plaintiff thought that Sauls had been killed or seriously injured, among other things, that his spinal column had been fractured. She was led away from the scene in a state of shock and turmoil.

Sauls was taken to the hospital in an ambulance accompanied by the plaintiff. At the hospital it transpired that he had suffered, apart from the concussion, very slight injuries. The plaintiff however was in a condition of shock and confusion and was very tense. Evidence was presented that on the night of the accident she slept badly and experienced nightmares, reliving the whole trauma. The next day she was treated for shock. On the Monday she returned to her work as a Senior Staff Nursing Sister, but could not cope. She was subsequently diagnosed with a post-traumatic stress disorder, which had become chronic and unlikely to improve. She is now withdrawn, does not want to see anyone, is deeply depressed, suffers a pattern of sleep disturbance with intrusive and morbid dreams. In short, her case was that, as a consequence of her witnessing the injury to Sauls, she suffered emotional shock and trauma, which gave rise to a recognised and detectable psychiatric injury, namely post-traumatic stress disorder.

In the Court a quo, it was common cause that:

(a) The insured vehicle driven by Sadick had struck Sauls.

(b) The said collision was caused by Sadick's negligence.

(c) Sauls was injured.

(d) The respondent had in fact suffered shock and emotional trauma, resulting in chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.

(e) There was at the time of the collision a very close relationship between the respondent and Sauls. They were betrothed, had been living together for some time and were indeed married before the commencement of the trial.

The Court considered the judgment in Bester v Commercial Union Versekeringsmaatskappy van SA Bpk 1973 (1) SA 769 (A) where it was held that there was "no reason in our law why somebody who, as the result of the negligent act of another, has suffered psychiatric injury with consequent indisposition should not be entitled to compensation, provided the possible consequences of the negligent act would have been foreseen by a reasonable person in the place of the wrongdoer".

In the aforementioned case the Court held further that as far as negligence and the foresee- ability tests are concerned, foresight of the reasonable possibility of harm is required. Foresight of a mere possibility of harm will not suffice in this regard as held in Mkhatswa v Minister of Defence 2000 (1) SA (SCA). The general manner in which the harm will occur must be reasonably foreseeable, though not necessarily the precise or exact manner in which the harm will occur.

In order to be successful, the Court argued, the Plaintiff must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Sadick should have foreseen as a reasonable possibility that she would be harmed. This does not mean that she must prove that Sadick should have foreseen the precise or exact manner in which the harm to her would or could occur, but that she must prove that the general manner of its occurrence was reasonably foreseeable.

This analysis would necessarily lead to the following factual question which the Court had to answer: Did the Plaintiff succeed in proving on a balance of probabilities that a reasonable person in Sadick's position should have foreseen that, by his careless driving, he would knock over Sauls and that, as a consequence, someone close to him would witness the collision and would suffer severe shock, distress and emotional trauma resulting in a psychiatric disorder?

The Court held that, after evaluating all the relevant facts, the Court a quo correctly held that that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was foreseeable as a reasonable possibility.

On behalf of the appellant much was made of the fact that, despite the severity of the collision and the body of Sauls being spun around and thrown some distance forward, he was only slightly injured. It was argued that under these circumstances, the normal and foreseeable reaction of a person in the plaintiff's position would be some shock and trauma which would disappear in a relatively short time, at the latest when it was established that Sauls was not seriously injured. That such shock and trauma would lead to a very serious case of post-traumatic stress disorder, so it was argued, was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Court did not agree to the soundness of this argument. Although it later transpired that Sauls was only slightly injured, the manner in which he was knocked off his feet, flung into the air and spun around, was witnessed by the plaintiff. This must have been a traumatic experience to any observer and the Court held that the plaintiff was justified in thinking that Sauls had been mortally injured and was dying.

The Court then moved onto the question of legal causation, i.e. whether the harm or loss suffered is not too remote to be recognised in law. The test to be applied is a flexible one in which factors such as reasonable foreseeability, directness, the absence or presence of an intervening cause, legal policy, reasonableness, fairness and justice all play their part.

The Court held that the so-called flexible approach or test of legal causation did not require in the present case either a denial of or limitation to the plaintiff's claim, apart from question of proof of the quantum of damages. The Court found that the harm caused to the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable and could easily have been avoided. The harm was caused directly to the plaintiff, she being in the BMW and witnessing the collision first hand. There is a clear attitude in South African law that claims in respect of negligently caused shock and emotional trauma resulting in a detectable psychiatric injury are actionable. In this regard, the Court referred to Clinton-Parker v Administrator, Transvaal; Dawkins v Administrator, Transvaal 1996 (2) SA 37 (W); Majiet v Santam Ltd [1997] 4 B All SA 555 (C); Barnard v Santam Bpk (1999) 1 SA 202 (SCA).

It was argued by the Counsel for the appellant that the distinguishing factor in the present claim is the serious harm caused to the plaintiff compared with the negligible harm caused to the primary victim, Sauls. It was argued that if the present claim where the primary harm is negligible is allowed, the flood gates will be opened to a multitude of claims, where huge amounts will be sought for secondary harm, whether genuine or simulated. Counsel argued furthermore that if the present claim is allowed to a live-in lover or betrothed, what is there to negate similar claims by partners to a customary or common law or religious union, children, parents, grandchildren, favourite uncles and aunts, close friends.

The Court held that it could find no general "public policy" limitation to the claim of a plaintiff, other than a correct and careful application of the well-known requirements of delictual liability and of the onus of proof. It was held that that it is not justifiable to limit the claim under consideration to a defined relationship between the primary and secondary victims, such as parent and child, husband and wife. In determining limitations, a Court will have to take into consideration the relationship between the primary and secondary victims. The question is then one of legal policy, reasonableness, fairness and justice.

The Court referred in this regard to the matter of Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 311 (HL), reported in [1991] 4 All ER 907 where it is stated that:

"As regards the class of persons to whom a duty may be owed to take reasonable care to avoid inflicting psychiatric illness through nervous shock sustained by reason of physical injury or peril to another, I think it is sufficient that reasonable foreseeability should be the guide. I would not seek to limit the class by reference to particular relationships such as husband and wife or parent and child. The kinds of relationship which may involve close ties of love and affection are numerous, and it is the existence of such ties which leads to mental disturbance when a loved one suffers a catastrophe."

In summary therefore, the Court held that:-

1. There is no general public policy limitation to the claim of the plaintiff for damages for the negligent causation of emotional shock and resultant detectable psychiatric injury, other than a correct and careful application of the well-known requirements of delictual liability and the onus of proof.

2. It is not justifiable to limit such a claim to a defined relationship between the primary and secondary victims.

3. In determining limitations however, a Court will take into consideration the relationship between the primary and secondary victims and then the question is one of legal policy, reasonableness, fairness and justice.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions