Nervous shock is a profound psychological injury caused by witnessing or experiencing a traumatic event. It is not mere emotional distress or upset but a recognised psychiatric illness that can disrupt every aspect of one’s life.
Seeing a loved one injured or killed in an accident is shattering. Whether you were at the scene or witnessed the immediate aftermath, the psychological toll of such experiences can be overwhelming. People quite often suffer psychological injury after a trauma, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Nervous shock is not simply emotional upset; it must meet strict legal criteria to qualify for compensation. Irish courts have long recognised the validity of these claims, beginning with the landmark Supreme Court Decision in Kelly v. Hennessy, which set out five critical criteria for nervous shock claims:
- The claimant must have suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness, such as PTSD, depression, or an adjustment disorder.
- The illness must have been shock-induced by a sudden, traumatic event.
- There must be a causal link between the event and the psychiatric illness.
- The shock must arise from actual or apprehended physical injury to the claimant or another person.
- The defendant must have owed the claimant a duty of care, and their breach of this duty caused the psychiatric injury.
a) Proof
A diagnosis of a recognisable psychiatric illness from a qualified medical professional which also links the condition to the traumatic event is critical.
Time limits
Typically, you have two years from the date of the event or the date you became aware of your condition to initiate a claim.
b) What compensation can one seek for nervous shock
Compensation may include therapy costs, loss of earnings, and general damages for emotional suffering.
The Book of Judicial Guidelines sets out a range of values for a claim for PTSD ranging from €500 to €120,000. The highest range is in cases involving permanent effects which prevent the injured party from working and functioning at anything pre-trauma level.
Recent case law
A very recent High Court decision has now clarified the law and has demonstrated that a medical type setting can form the basis of such claims. In Kinsella v Carter [2026] IEHC 319, the High Court has made significant clarifications to the law of nervous shock and the ability of relatives to recover for nervous shock where their relative has been injured through medical negligence.
The Deceased, who was the wife of the Plaintiff, had been on a daily dose of 10mg of a medication for high blood pressure. On 18 July 2021, an ambulance was called due to difficulty breathing, and she was admitted to the hospital for management of a heart issue.
The normal maximum dose of the high blood pressure medication is 20mg once daily. However, the admitting doctor prescribed 80mg of the drug, which was administered and caused a “sudden and catastrophic medical event”.
The Plaintiff gave evidence of seeing his wife with “black stuff” coming out of her mouth, this being charcoal from the antidote that was used to treat the overdose, and of holding her hand while she was unconscious.
While leaving the hospital, he collapsed, requiring treatment in the Emergency Department. One of his daughters gave evidence that he was shaking, shocked, and having difficulty walking. It was not until the next day that he was informed of the overdose. He was ultimately diagnosed with PTSD caused by the shock of what he witnessed.
The hospital admitted breach of duty as regards the overdose but denied that it owed any duty of care to the Plaintiff.
The key issues in the case were whether the psychiatric illness was ‘shock-induced’ and whether there was a duty of care owed to the spouse of the patient.
The Court held that an ‘accident’ is not limited to road traffic accidents or industrial mishaps, and that the overdose in question was an accident that was immediately catastrophic.
The Hospital argued that extending the duty of care to patients’ families would shift the focus of care from the patient themselves.
The High Court held that the negligent administration of a gross overdose was a qualifying “accident”/shocking event notwithstanding that it occurred during hospital treatment.
The court found the plaintiff’s psychiatric injury to be “shock-induced”: it originated in the traumatic experience beginning on the day of the overdose, with subsequent events reinforcing but not displacing the initial shock.
On duty of care, the court rejected an “absolutist” position that a hospital’s duty to the patient necessarily negates any duty to a spouse witness. It held that, on these facts, a duty of care to the plaintiff while emphasising that this did not create a general duty owed by hospitals to relatives of patients.