Medical Negligence – Do health care providers owe a duty of care to the relatives of their patients?  The current legal position in Ireland.

We previously published a blog Medical Negligence – Do health care providers owe a duty of care to the relatives of their patients? on Wednesday, January 29th, 2025.

https://cantillons.com/blog/medical-negligence-do-health-care-providers-owe-a-duty-of-care-to-the-relatives-of-their-patients/

The law is dynamic and this Blog examines developments in the law since then.

Irish law allows compensation for psychiatric injury caused by negligence. It is not enough, however, to show that an event was upsetting. The courts distinguish between ordinary human reactions such as grief, distress, and anxiety which compensation is not given for versus the development of a medically recognised psychiatric illness for which compensation can be sought.

Someone who is a victim of medical negligence themselves can claim compensation if they suffer such a psychiatric injury.

However, there is also scope for someone who witnessed the injury or death of their loved one as a consequence of medical negligence and suffered a psychiatric injury to bring a claim.  This is called nervous shock.

In the UK these are called Primary and Secondary victims respectively.  That term is not widely used in Irish law, but it can be a helpful way to describe them.  In Ireland a secondary victim is often termed a bystander.

Kelly v. Hennessy[1] remains the leading authority in Ireland regarding nervous shock and the conditions set out in that case must still be proved.  Therefore, a plaintiff must satisfy the following condition in order to recover damages for nervous shock:

1. A plaintiff must establish that they suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness.
2. A plaintiff must establish that their recognisable psychiatric illness was shock-induced.
3. A plaintiff must prove that the nervous shock was caused by the defendant’s act or omission.
4. The nervous shock sustained by a plaintiff must be by reason of actual or apprehended physical injury to the plaintiff or a person other than the plaintiff; and
5. A plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care not to cause them a reasonably foreseeable injury in the form of nervous shock.

In the UK a Supreme Court decision in January 2024 Paul v. Wolverhampton NHS[2] [Paul] held that the Plaintiff’s claim for nervous shock failed and that doctors do not generally owe relatives a duty of care.   A more recent High court decision in the UK in March 2026 MIM v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust[3] followed that decision.  However it used different reasoning holding that what the Plaintiff witnessed (the negligently managed labour and birth of his son) was a medical crisis/process, not a “sudden, unexpected, and unintended” accident.

In the Irish Courts, Carmel Germaine, a widow who alleged she suffered nervous shock following her husband’s death from lung cancer brough a claim. The Defendants referenced the decision of Paul v Wolverhampton NHS in their Defence.  Ms Justise Egan in the High Court delivered her judgment in July 2024 in Carmel Germaine v Mary Day[4] [Germaine].  The Plaintiff’s claim for nervous shock was dismissed as it did not meet the criteria set out in Kelly v Hennessy i.e. sadly, an earlier diagnosis would not have changed the prognosis, therefore the delay was not causative of the deceased’s death from lung cancer.

In Germaine the court made obiter comments about the question as to whether a doctor has a duty of care to parties other than the Plaintiff.  It stated, “The reasonableness of imposing a duty of care owed must be established on the facts of each case” and concluded that “a court should not decide a question of broad import unless necessary to resolve the case at hand”.

In October 2025, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor delivered his judgment in Lynch v Reynolds & Ors[5] [Lynch].  In this the plaintiff mother claimed damages for nervous shock arising out of the death of her son, after being struck by a car.  Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor found that “the plaintiff has suffered PTSD from the ‘horrific experience that she had’ in the aftermath of the incident which was complicated by her experience at the morgue, the inability to recover any of his clothing and having to endure the long inconclusive investigation into the circumstances including the identity of the driver”.  He awarded €130,000 in damages to the Plaintiff.

The current stance in Ireland based on Lynch is that damages are recoverable for nervous shock.  This contrasts with the position in the UK.

The decision in Germaine reinforced that the criteria set out in Kelly v Hennessy must be met to receive compensation for nervous shock but left it open to the Irish Courts to decide whether a duty of care is owed to bystanders by healthcare providers.

[1] [1995] 3 IR 253

[2] [2024] UKSC 1

[3] [2026] EWHC 562 (KB)

[4] [2024] IEHC 420

[5] [2025] IEHC 527

Contact us at Cantillons Solicitors at +353 (0)21 4275673 or info@cantillons.com  if you would like more information.

* In contentious business, a Solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement.  Many Personal Injury Solicitors portray themselves as “no win no fee Solicitors Cork”. This term can be misleading and it is essential that you discuss fees with the Personal Injury Solicitor you ultimately choose. At Cantillons Solicitors, we are entirely transparent.