Podcast
Questions and Answers
What is the Wilkinson v Downton rule related to?
What is the Wilkinson v Downton rule related to?
What must be proven to establish a claim under the Wilkinson v Downton rule?
What must be proven to establish a claim under the Wilkinson v Downton rule?
What is the exception to in the Wilkinson v Downton rule?
What is the exception to in the Wilkinson v Downton rule?
What was the outcome in the Wilkinson v Downton case?
What was the outcome in the Wilkinson v Downton case?
Signup and view all the answers
What is required of the defendant's conduct under the Wilkinson v Downton rule?
What is required of the defendant's conduct under the Wilkinson v Downton rule?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the significance of the Wilkinson v Downton rule?
What is the significance of the Wilkinson v Downton rule?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
What is the Wilkinson v Downton rule?
The Wilkinson v Downton rule is a legal principle in Common Law jurisdictions, including England and Wales, that deals with the intentional infliction of emotional distress or mental shock.
Key Elements:
To establish a claim under the Wilkinson v Downton rule, the following elements must be proven:
- The defendant's conduct was intentional or reckless
- The defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous
- The plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress or mental shock
- The defendant's conduct was the direct cause of the plaintiff's emotional distress or mental shock
Notable Case:
The rule is derived from the 1897 English case of Wilkinson v Downton, where a defendant falsely informed a woman that her husband had been seriously injured in an accident. The woman suffered a nervous shock, which led to serious health problems.
Key Principles:
- The rule is an exception to the general rule that emotional distress or mental shock is not a compensable injury
- The defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous, going beyond mere negligence or recklessness
- The plaintiff must have suffered severe emotional distress or mental shock, which can be evidenced by physical symptoms or medical treatment
Significance:
The Wilkinson v Downton rule provides a basis for plaintiffs to claim damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress or mental shock, holding defendants accountable for their outrageous and extreme conduct.
Wilkinson v Downton Rule
- Legal principle in Common Law jurisdictions, including England and Wales, dealing with intentional infliction of emotional distress or mental shock
Key Elements
- Defendant's conduct was intentional or reckless
- Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous
- Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress or mental shock
- Defendant's conduct was the direct cause of plaintiff's emotional distress or mental shock
Notable Case: Wilkinson v Downton
- 1897 English case where defendant falsely informed woman that her husband was seriously injured in accident
- Woman suffered nervous shock, leading to serious health problems
Key Principles
- Exception to the general rule that emotional distress or mental shock is not a compensable injury
- Defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous, going beyond mere negligence or recklessness
- Plaintiff must have suffered severe emotional distress or mental shock, evidenced by physical symptoms or medical treatment
Significance
- Provides basis for plaintiffs to claim damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress or mental shock
- Holds defendants accountable for their outrageous and extreme conduct
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Description
This quiz covers the legal principle of Wilkinson v Downton, which deals with intentional infliction of emotional distress or mental shock in Common Law jurisdictions.
