What is the core rule from Wilkinson v. Downton?

If a person deliberately makes a serious false statement likely to cause bodily harm through shock, the law imputes an intention to cause such harm and holds them liable.

Is actual physical contact required for liability?

No. Liability can arise without physical contact when severe mental shock foreseeably causes physical illness or injury.

Why is this case important for IIED in tort law?

It laid the groundwork for the modern tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and protection against deliberate mental harm.

How did the court view foreseeability?

The prank was so serious that a reasonable person could foresee grave effects; thus the harm was not too remote.

Does the defendant escape if the harm was greater than expected?

No. It is no defense that more harm occurred than anticipated; that is common in many wrongs.

wilkinson-v-downton-intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress

Wilkinson v. Downton [1897] 2 QB 57

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) explained in classroom-style, easy English.

Queen’s Bench 1897 Bench: QBD Citation: [1897] 2 QB 57 Tort Law Reading: ~6 min Location: India (Explainer)

CASE_TITLE: Wilkinson v. Downton (IIED) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: IIED, nervous shock, tort SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: prank liability, mental harm, English law AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-30 Slug: wilkinson-v-downton-intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress

Quick Summary

This case protects people from deliberate “serious jokes” that cause real harm. The defendant told Mrs. Wilkinson a shocking lie: her husband had broken both legs and she must fetch him. She believed it, suffered severe nervous shock, and fell ill. The court held that when a person makes a grave, false statement meant to be taken seriously and likely to cause bodily harm through shock, the law treats it as intentional harm. No physical touch is needed.

IIED Nervous Shock Foreseeability Deliberate Falsehood Personal Safety

Issues

Did the defendant do an act calculated to cause physical harm (through shock) to the plaintiff?
Could a reasonable person foresee such harmful consequences from that statement?

Rules

A sudden, serious false statement, intended to be believed, is naturally likely to cause grave effects in ordinary people. The law therefore imputes an intention to cause such effects. It is not a defense that the actual harm turned out worse than expected; that is common in many wrongs.

Facts (Timeline)

Simple timeline illustration for Wilkinson v. Downton

The “Joke”

Downton told Mrs. Wilkinson that her husband had suffered an accident and broken both legs; she must fetch him from a nearby pub.

False but Serious

The statement was false. It was delivered seriously so that she would believe it.

Shock & Illness

She suffered severe nervous shock and became ill for weeks, though she had no prior nervous condition.

Lawsuit

She sued for compensation for her illness and suffering caused by the false representation.

Arguments

Appellant (Plaintiff)

The statement was designed to be believed, not casual play.
Serious shock and resulting illness were foreseeable consequences.
Right to personal safety was invaded even without physical contact.

Respondent (Defendant)

It was a joke; no intention to cause actual bodily harm.
Any severe illness was beyond what could reasonably be expected.
No physical injury was directly inflicted by the defendant.

Judgment

The court found for Mrs. Wilkinson. The defendant willfully made a serious false statement intended to be believed, infringing her right to personal safety and causing foreseeable physical harm through shock. The injury was not too remote; it could be taken as intended.

Result: Liability established for intentional infliction of emotional harm leading to bodily illness.

Ratio Decidendi

A defendant who intentionally makes a grave false statement, meant to be accepted as true and likely to cause bodily harm through mental shock, is treated in law as intending that harm. The extent of actual harm need not match the defendant’s personal estimate.

Why It Matters

Foundation case for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED).
Recognizes protection against deliberate mental harm even without physical contact.
Emphasizes foreseeability and imputes intent where effects are obvious.

Key Takeaways

Serious falsehood + intent to be believed = liability if harm is likely.
No physical touch required; shock → illness is enough.
Greater-than-expected harm is still actionable.

Right to personal safety includes mental well-being.
Foreseeability links prank to legal responsibility.
Useful in modern IIED and nervous shock claims.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “ J-S-F” — Joke was Serious and the harm was Foreseeable.

Joke told as truth (serious delivery).
Shock causes real illness.
Foreseeable harm → law imputes intent.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether a deliberately serious false statement, intended to be believed, and likely to cause shock, makes the defendant liable for the resulting illness.

Rule

Law imputes intention where grave effects are the natural outcome of a serious falsehood; excess harm is not a defense.

Application

The prank was crafted to be believed; shock and illness were foreseeable for an ordinary person; thus liability follows.

Conclusion

Defendant is liable for intentional infliction of emotional harm leading to bodily illness.

Glossary

Nervous Shock: A sudden mental disturbance causing physical illness or injury.
Foreseeability: Whether a reasonable person could predict the harmful result.
Imputed Intention: Law treats a person as intending the natural consequences of their serious act.

FAQs

The law targets the harmful act: a serious falsehood likely to cause shock and illness. A light joke is not enough; seriousness and foreseeability are key.

Courts look for credible evidence that shock led to real illness or incapacity. Medical proof strengthens the claim.

This case concerns intentional (or imputed-intent) conduct. Pure negligence is treated differently under nervous shock rules.

The test is an ordinary person in the situation. Here the statement was so grave that harm to a normal person was foreseeable.