How Common Law Evolves: A Lesson from Four UK Cases

I was thinking about the benefits of discussing these four UK cases in sequence:

• Case 11: Dulieu v. White & Sons Horses and carriage crash into a pub scaring the bartender
• Case 33: Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers A runaway truck frightens a mother
• Case 49: Bourhill v. Young A bystander witnesses the aftermath of an accident
• Case 65: Chadwick v. British Railways A bystander is traumatized after helping the victims of a train crash

Each of these cases revolves around the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and when explored one after another, they show how common law develops. Each case builds directly on the one before it, refining legal principles to address new and unresolved issues.

This mirrors how we learn from life itself. We derive general principles from specific experiences, apply them to new situations, and refine our judgments along the way. This ongoing process isn’t just how law evolves—it’s how we develop critical thinking, sound decision-making, and personal growth.

By engaging with these cases in sequence, players of That’s Just Wrong! can see the evolution of legal reasoning—and, in turn, sharpen their own ability to think clearly and navigate the complexities of real-world decision-making.