[The story of liability for ‘nervous shock’ begins with the Privy Council decision in Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas in 1888 holding that such damage was too remote—a decision soon rejected by courts in England and elsewhere (though it had considerable influence in the United States). Over the next hundred years, courts gradually extended the boundaries of liability for what is now called psychiatric injury or mental harm. But the law reports tell us nothing about James and Mary Coultas, apart from what happened to them on one particular day. Moreover, the assertion in the initial report that Mary suffered a miscarriage is actually misleading, colouring judicial attitudes to nervous shock over a long period. Who were James and Mary Coultas, and why did they bring the action? What were the consequences of losing the case, and what happened to them after that? This article looks beyond the law reports to other sources in order to answer these questions.]

中文翻译：

---

维多利亚铁路专员诉库尔塔斯：不为人知的故事

[“神经性休克”责任的故事始于 1888 年枢密院在 Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas 案中的裁决，该裁决认为这种损害太遥远——该裁决很快被英格兰和其他地方的法院驳回（尽管它在美国）。在接下来的一百年里，法院逐渐扩大了现在所谓的精神伤害或精神伤害的责任范围。但是法律报告没有告诉我们关于詹姆斯和玛丽库塔斯的任何事情，除了他们在某一天发生的事情。此外，最初报告中关于玛丽流产的说法实际上具有误导性，在很长一段时间内影响了司法人员对神经休克的态度。詹姆斯和玛丽库塔斯是谁，他们为什么要采取行动？败诉的后果是什么，之后他们发生了什么？为了回答这些问题，本文着眼于其他来源的法律报告。]