Cited Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. The House of Lords dismissed all the claimants appeals since none of them was able to satisfy the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness which had been laid down in Alcock case. So, it was held by the court that the claimant was entitled to recover damages even though she suffered psychiatric illness through the fear of her childrens safety, not through the fear of her own physical injury or safety. l'LCocI2Vp.0c The plaintiff must show that the defendant owed duty of care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock. In this case, Lord Oliver[29] took the view that-Brian Harrison, one of the appellants, lost his two brothers but still failed in his action in spite of his presence in the stadium, because he produced no evidence of close tie of love with his two brothers. (now Lord Justice Waller) and the majority in the Court of Appeal erred in reversing him: Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 W.L.R. Employment > Health and safety; The plaintiffs in the case were police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium disaster. The Categorisation of Primary and Secondary Victims A. A possible suggestion for not allowing compensation in this instance may be directly related to a fear of a floodgate of claims if some claimants were successful. Moreover, a rescuer in relation to whom physical injury was not reasonably foreseeable could not recover damages for psychiatric injury sustained by witnessing, or participating in the aftermath of, an accident which had caused death or injury to others; such rescuers were to be categorised as secondary victims, and so would have to meet the conditions specified by Lord Oliver in Alcock. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster . As a result of the tragic death of his workmate he was so upset and mentally distressed. Since they were not endangered in the discharge of their service or in rescuing, as employees and/or rescuers, the police officers were only secondary victims. But the fact of the present case must be considered in accordance with the decision of Bourhill v Young[54] where the House of Lords provided the test-if the defendant have reasonably foreseen any damage to the claimant then he owes a duty of care and liable for negligently causing personal damage. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for the psychiatric harm they had suffered as a result of witnessing the tragedy first-hand. Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. The distinction between primary and secondary victims is well worth noting. Many of the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the television . Among all the claimants, thirteen people lost either their relatives or friends because of death. Decent Essays. His brother in law and his nephew also had been present in the football ground who was watching the live match from the terrace. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) 1 AC 310 the ordinary rules of negligence were applied to allegedly negligent crowd control by the police. The victims were taken to the nearest hospital by that neighbour. [58] that the defendant was in breach of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages. In other words psychiatric shock was to be treated as direct personal injury. I conclude by wholeheartedly agreeing with Lord Steyns statement that The Law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify and I feel, the cases discussed in this essay clearly support my viewpoint. Capacity plays a vital role in determining whether a person can exercise autonomy in making choices in all aspects of life, from simple decisions to far-reaching decisions such as Our academic writing and marking services can help you! *You can also browse our support articles here >. However, as far as their claim for psychiatric illness was concerned, the court was neither convinced with the surrounding facts and circumstances that there was sufficient close tie of love and affection with the claimants and the primary victim nor was convinced that the psychiatric illness that they had sustained was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant in accordance with the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness established in the leading case of Alcock. The boy screamed loud enough and tried to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the other foot. They said that the defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. The defenadant appealed against the decision of Salmon J. [57] A Selection Of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition. The teenager, who is now fighting for his life, was struck by a blue Mini Cooper at the junction of Leeds Road and Muffit Lane in Heckmondwike. It was the case of King v Phillips[44] in which the claimant having suffered psychiatric illness failed to establish a claim against the defendant as the court considered that the victim was far away from the accident. This case also relates to the Hillsborough disaster. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. Eventually she died as a result of that injury. The plaintiffs were not primary victims as they we were not within the range of foreseeable physical injury and their psychiatric harm was a result of . See para 1.5 n 14 below. There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the case of King v Philips. Abstract. Although, Rough was driving another van but he came across the accident. Firstly, it fell to be determined whether an employer owed a duty of care to protect their employees from psychiatric injuries they may incur in the course of their employment. The House of Lords (by a majority) in Page v Smith, enhanced the recovery of the primary victim over the secondary victim. The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. 0 In a subsequent case, Packenham v Irish Ferries Limited this principle was upheld and damages were not awarded as there was no recognized psychiatric illness. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries. In this instance, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster . As soon as she arrived to the hospital, she was informed that her youngest daughter was killed. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords against the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ. . They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force. So, after a very careful consideration of the facts and surrounding circumstances, his Lordship dismissed the defendants appeal. miscarriage. The defendant police service had not . Held: Where an accident is of a particular . In Alcock case, the House of Lords took the view that- the secondary victims will be entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury if he can establish the fact that, the defendant could have reasonably foreseen that he would suffer from a psychiatric illness due to the negligent act as there was proximity of relationship between both the primary and secondary victims. Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. More news from across Yorkshire In the present case, despite of being present at the stadium during the football match the claimants whose action had been rejected by the House of Lords are as follows[25]: Brian Harrison was one of the appellants. In Kelly v Hennessy [1995] 3IR.253 CJ Hamilton laid down criteria, which have become the standard test for nervous shock. The police failed to control crowed at the match. Courts must therefore act in company and not alone. denitions given by Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police[1992] are sufcient for present purposes: a primary victim is someone 'who is involved either mediately or immediately as a participant in an accident' a secondary victim is someone who is 'no more than a passive and unwilling witness of an [60]did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the decision given by Salmon J. According to Stephenson LJ[69], although the claimants psychiatric illness was reasonably forseeable by the defendants and they owed a duty of care to the claimant, but it was policy considerations that hampered the claimant from establishing a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. Cited Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Foreseeability Standard to Establish NegligenceComplaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. reversed Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which found Ps were primary victims as rescuers; The preliminary issue before the court was whether the existing law allows the claimants to bring an action for recovery of damages against the defendants or not. . Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. . So, the law in this area seems to be very rigid and complicated for the secondary victims. .Cited Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007 The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. Kearns J [2003] stated the category of relationships entitled to successfully claim damages for nervous shock should be tightly restricted.. Cases Referenced. .Cited French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. The plaintiff worried excessively and developed reactive anxiety neurosis, a psychiatric illness. Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] UKHL 5; Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep 271; Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 3 WLR 1194; Galt v British Railways Board (1983) 133 NLJ 870; Gregg v Ashbrae Ltd [2006] NICA 17; Hunter v British Coal Corporation [1998 . It appears in analysing this case that the House of Lords were conscious of the judgment made in the Alcock case. This took place while Robertson was driving the van on a carriageway which was high above the water. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. The Greatorex v Greatorex and another[37]is another case in which the question arose whether a defendant owes any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing him a psychiatric injury by self inflicted injuries. was reluctant to interfere with the findings of the court and agreed with the decision given by McNair J. Before discussing the above cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of the term nervous shock and its history. Most importantly, the development of the law in this area has been influenced by policy considerations, that is to say, to restrict the large number of potential claimants. A question arose before the court; whether the mother had suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her eyes or the shock was caused as a result of what she was told by the bystander. The married mother-of-one began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Yorkshire Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable. View history. The outcome of the Frost v Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police case, in which the House of Lords decided that the plaintiffs ( police officers) who, as a result of assisting the victims of the Hillsborough disaster ,which had been caused by negligence,( for which the Chief Constable was liable) , were not entitled to damages for nervous shock , either because their employment relationship gave rise to duties which were not owed to strangers, nor as rescuers , I feel gives credence to this statement by Lord Steyn . However, Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ. In that case, as long as the claimants can establish that there is a kind of close tie of love with the injured person and because of having such a relationship the claimant is mentally disturbed or shocked when the loved one suffers serious physical peril or injury. Baker v Bolton [1808] EWHC KB J92. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Define primary victim, Define secondary victim, What was the initial definition of psychiatric damage and more. Firstly shock had to occur as a result of what the plaintiff witnessed from his / her unaided senses .This required that the plaintiffs be close to the event. Potential claims of misfeasance in public office and libel might also be considered. 141. The most recent of which was Frost v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy. Held: The claim failed: these claimants have no . . [1] Nicolas N (2002), A Remedy for Nervous Shock or Psychiatric Harm- Who Pays?-Volume 9, Number 4. .Cited McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm) CA 2002 In deciding whether a duty of care is established the court must go to the battery of tests which the House of Lords has taught us to use, namely: . The UK High Court has found that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) infringed the privacy of renowned musician Sir Cliff Richard (Sir Cliff) by broadcasting a raid by the South Yorkshire Police (the SYP) following an allegation of historical sexual . In-house law team, White and Others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, NEGLIGENCE PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE LIABILITY TO RESCUERS DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. .Cited Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000 A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. [41] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). Generally, the burden of proving such a close tie of love and affection lies with the person who wishes to establish a claim for psychiatric illness. He argued that, in Bourhills case, the fishwife was not entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness since she did not see the actual accident at the time it took place but only saw the outcome of it afterwards. . Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 2 I.L.R.M.94. Recovery, on the other hand, for a secondary victim is differentiated and is much more restricted. /Length 13 0 R The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Mental Health relates to the emotional and psychological state that an individual is in. .Cited Salter v UB Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003 The pursuer was involved in an accident at work, where his co-worker died. So according to Keiths directions the defenadant was backing his car out and paying attention to him. The caimant was summoned by the hospital authority in order to see her injured family members. Firstly the court held that despite the fact that the plaintiff was approximately two miles away from the incident and did not arrive at the hospital until one hour after the incident; the scene at the hospital (all victims were still covered in mud and oil) was such to render her proximate to the accident. Different kinds of harm The horrific events of 15 April 1989 at the . Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. [70] As per Griffith LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 829. But, the chief constable of South Yorkshire police claimed that they did not owe any duty of care to the claimants. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] Lord Steyn stated that the area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. The Supreme Courts decision was to disallow recovery as there was no more than a remote risk of contracting a disease. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. Hearing about it from someone else would not suffice. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. Is there any liability for self inflicted physical injury which caused the claimants psychiatric illness? Music background . Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal. Many of the claimants failed in the requirement of proximity of place. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Cited McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] AC 455 at 507H-508A, Lord Hoffman described Lord Oliver's explanation of these 'unwilling participant' cases as "an ex post facto rationalisation" and as "an elegant, not to say ingenious, explanation, which owes nothing to the. In the case of Brice v Brown[4], hysterical personality disorder was considered to be a psychiatric injury. After the Alcock case, the English courts have adopted a further strict approach of the requirement of close tie of love and affection when there is an issue of successful action for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. 223 0 obj <>stream The claimants, as secondary victims, had to satisfy the criteria for the imposition of liability formulated by the House of Lords in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as . *595 Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. It was the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, [11] where Lord Oliver for the first time drew the attention to the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration . He went on stating that, due to the policy considerations, the arguments against there being a duty of care prevails over the arguments in favour of being there such a duty of care. Three were on duty at the ground itself; one had attempted to free spectators while the other two had attended the makeshift morgue in the gymnasium. The lead case on secondary victim claims is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] which sets out a 4-stage test known as the control mechanisms. The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary . As far as the secondary victims claim for psychiatric illness is concerned, Lord Keith[27] in this case took the opinion that- he must establish a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim. After ariving to the garage, the claimant was asked by the defendant to repay the garage bills before he get his car released from that garage. In this instance, mental illness was accompanied by a physical trauma i.e. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. A rescuer or an employee suffering such psychiatric illness is also classified as a secondary victim (unless they are themselves endangered in the event). [9] NJ Mullany, Psychiatric damage in the House of Lords- Fourth time Unlucky: Page v Smith (1995) 3 Journal of Law and Medicine 112. .if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
California Tax Brackets 2021, National Guardian Life Insurance Class Action Lawsuit, Pe Investor Relations Interview, Articles F