[9] NJ Mullany, Psychiatric damage in the House of Lords- Fourth time Unlucky: Page v Smith (1995) 3 Journal of Law and Medicine 112. Filters. But, according to the facts of the present case, the defendant had the knowledge that the claimant was not far away from the place of the accident, so therefore it was reasonably forseeable by the defendant that the father would be shocked after witnessing the accident in which his little son was involved. The plaintiff, Mr Smith was deemed to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the accident and risked personal injury. .Cited James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018 The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (the Commissioner) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. The case Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police relates to claims brought by Alcock and several other claimants after the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. Traditionally, the category of close relationship indicates the familial relationship, such as the relationship between the spouses, parents and children, brothers and sisters etc. It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . The court held that the defendant was liable for negligence and allowed the claimant to recover damages for psychaitric illness as the mental injury to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant[65]. As a result, the claimant suffered from a nervous shock. The Facts. See para 1.5 n 14 below. The above judgment in White v The Chief Constable allowed the defendants' appeal against the 1997 Court of Appeal decision in Frost & Ors. Finally, the secondary victim is required to satisfy the court that his psychiatric illness was a direct result of witnessing or hearing of the traumatic event or its immediate aftermath[26]. 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. Held: . The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement that was delivered by Boreham J but on different ground. Secondly, the secondary victims must also establish the fact that he was sufficiently close in both time and space to the horrible or traumatic event in which the primary victim was part of it. Again, in the case of Fenn v City of Peterborough[64], the claimant arived home couple of minutes after a gas explosion in which he lost his three children. the purpose test (Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd); the assumption . 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. His Lordship continued that, the court will not interfere with the decision given by Salmon LJ and accept that the defendant was liable for the boys accident which resulted in a psychiatric injury to the claimant. The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground. We and our partners share information on your use of this website to help improve your experience. (see Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the recent case of Paul for an overview of the law on secondary victims.) If it was not reasonably forseeable then the defendant owes no duty of care to the claimant and there is no liability for negligence on the part of defendant. It is of paramount importance that the law enforcement When the defendant started backing his car out, Keith Keel began to give directions to the defendant from behind the car in order to prevent any collision with the pillar or any other cars. Lord Morton of Henryton: it has never been the law of England that an invitor, who has negligently but unintentionally injured an invitee, is liable to compensate other persons who . During a major football match in the Hillsborough ground, one part of the football stadium was crashed because the South Yorkshire police allowed an excessively large number of spectators in that part of the stadium which was already full. However, liability could not be avoided if the accident took place very close to him and was so horrific. .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. Such a relationship which is full of close tie and affection may be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship. The children had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures. This was an event of 19th October 1973. Prior to this, the initial response of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility. But, when a bystander of a horrible event suffers from psychiatric injury, it becomes very difficult for him or her to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury, since such a person is not closely connected to the injured person. There was a fear that it would be difficult for the courts to distinguish between a genuine claim and a fictitious claim, and also the fear that if one person recovered, this would in turn lead to a possible floodgate of claims. .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: . A person will be considered as secondary victim if he was present at the scene of the horrifying event and subsequently sustained a psychiatric injury due to witnessing the accident or event in which other person was involved, although he himself was out of the range of foreseeable physical injury[10]. 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. The case of White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998) QB 254 elicited need for necessary distinctions between physical injury and nervous shock and has had an impact on nervous shock claims by bringing other policy considerations into play, for example the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and the Criminal Justice Act of . . Lord Goff said: because shock in its nature is capable of affecting so wide a range of people, there is a real need for the law to place some limitation upon the extent of admissible claims. An employer has a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical injury. The Irish courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock. But, the chief constable of South Yorkshire police claimed that they did not owe any duty of care to the claimants. More news from across Yorkshire Before discussing the above cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of the term nervous shock and its history. Similarly there are some other cases where the claimants were not actually present at the scene of the accident but the court still held the defendant liable for negligently inflicting psychaitric injury to the claimants. 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . Consequently, Smith was killed as he fell a few feet on to the girder below the carriageway. .Cited Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008 The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. By Christopher Gardner, QC, Lamb Chambers. A rescuer, not himself exposed to physical risk by being involved in a rescue was a secondary victim, and as such not entitled to claim. 5th Oct 2021 [2000] 4 All ER 769 at page 770. 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. Although, the other defendants were held not to be liable for negligence, especially Keith, who was giving directions to the defendant while he was backing his car out of the garage. As a result of the tragic death of his workmate he was so upset and mentally distressed. In support of the first proposition, the defendants rely on the principles developed in a trilogy of House of Lords decisions commencing with Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, continuing with Page v Smith [1996] AC 155, and culminating in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (on . 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. Interestingly, it was also stated the purpose of the visit was to identify the body and not to aid the injured or rescue victims as in other compensation cases. It was argued that the defendants had failed to take adequate precautions to protect the plaintiff. Having witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock. The court further considered the issue if both the claimants suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. Packenham v Irish Ferries . The judge found in favour of ten out of the plaintiffs and against six of them. [17] As per Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [1925] 1 K.B 141 at page 142. Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. The courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants in the Alcock case had the officers been successful in this case . [14] Secondary Victims and Nervous Shock by M Dunne (2000) BR 383. The secondary victims must be close to the accident both in terms of time and place. The floodgates argument may be a possible reason for this. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found in favour of all but one of the officers. CA"$a& ,@jj DCn*Bt!\&;i~(JkGAI40-,,l_66PK$UHCT)FnpdC\uJ*C.W@tjJ9mG9#=8 }+,CPkkHYUTVJ_6YGw.=t]C8yjb[(B~*bhO]ijp+2C+asL!!\Bx*V'G/8W-d8y~M=_T\$eZA The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying We have come back to the plain . 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. The mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy. [27] As per Lord Keith [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 397. Free resources to assist you with your university studies! [23] Davie M (1992) Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Illness: The Hillsborough Case in the House of Lords 43 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 237. In relation to employer/employee relationship and duty of care the courts did not uphold the principles of the above cases. Another appellant, namely Mr. Robert Alcock, was present in the stadium and lost his brother in law but still failed in his action as it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendants that he would suffer psychiatric illness. The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. Cazalet J. agreed with the claimant that he meets all the recovery criteria that govern a claim for psychiatric injury sustained by him. The requirement of establishing proximity of relationship with the primary victims is one of the criteria. His widow claimed in nervous shock, saying that it had eventually led to his own death. An action was brought by her husband for the loss of benefit of her services. 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. .Cited Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. It does not merely include the very accident that caused the death or injury to the primary victims but it also includes the immidiate aftermath of the accident[66]. There are many examples where it has been seen that a person after sustaining a genuine shock could not recover damages for psychiatric illness only because of being failure to establish the fact that there was sufficient proximity of the secondary victim in time and place with the accident. Two of the plaintiffs were spectators in the ground, but not in the pens where the disaster occurred, the remainder of the plaintiffs learned of the disaster through . The distinction between primary and secondary victims is well worth noting. A primary victim could now recover for psychiatric illness even when this is not reasonably foreseeable, so long as the physical injury, which need not actually occur, is foreseeable. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! After a long examination of the case law by several of their Lordships, the three control Abstract. The defendant relied on the decision of the case in Bourhill v Young[48] with a view to support his arguement and stated that the psychiatric injury to the mother was not reasonably foreseeable as she was not within the range of reasonable anticipation. The function of the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge. [1] Nicolas N (2002), A Remedy for Nervous Shock or Psychiatric Harm- Who Pays?-Volume 9, Number 4. D h.d.CFPxe @0RI4 #Pm'Qc^FF" -P!P)Hljc6f.X{81,qxn;G#1t._!c 6jlw(9OAEiQ*Jr.JEW; v}qsF{-HE qx#>#erJ5$afH" :s8C1@( di4)bH'=8 pKzx2DjkZhh"lc+*`>p@>*& "$x YMzBCCCBS$Gtds]1w6F[:s\mPq%`:CGqt`*SzTAER3 baP0/XlX>,eoWf0`X }@| D So, however, in the light of the above case decisions it has been obvious that the secondary victim must establish proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection in order to establish a claim for psychiatric illness. Evidence Law - Admissibility of Evidence Essays. . In this case, the British High Court ruled that a plaintiff, a bar maid, could recover damages for nervous shock even though no actual impact was involved in the accident. However, an action for psychatric injury was brought by the claimant against the defendant and the owners of the garage[57]. As a result of the negligence of the police department, ninety six spectators died in a massive crash and more than approximately four hundred spectators were severely injured in that accident. . Such cases highlight to me, that recovery for damages relating to nervous shock, is probably one of the most controversial and complex areas of modern law. The court did not allow any damages to the claimant for her psychiatric injury. In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the claimant arrived in to the hospital with a view to see her injured family membrs after two hours, the House of Lords still recognized that as an immediate aftermath. A live television broadcast of that match was running from the ground. However, considering the surrounding circumstances of the present case (King v Phillips), McNair J. Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. However in relation to claims brought by siblings this close relationship had to be proven by evidence. The defendant admitted that he had been negligent, but said he was not liable for the psychiatric damage as it was unforeseeable and therefore not recoverable as a head of damage .The Page v Smith case is significant in that it enhanced the distinction between primary and secondary victims. 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. Taylor v Somerset HA [1993] PIQR P 262 2. 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. Both of them used to go out for drink once a week. Programme for stress management. Mental Health can have a positive or negative impact on our behaviour, decision-making, and actions, as well as our general health and well-being. These standard criteria have made it more difficult to claim damages in Irish courts. The facts of this case are as follows, the plaintiff, Mr. [1981] 1 All ER 809. The requirement that the secondary victims must be physically present to the accident or its immediate aftermath was for the first time established by Lord Wilberforce in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[42] which subsequently had been approved by the House of Lords in the leading case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire[43]. The outcome of this case would undoubtedly, in my opinion, have set a precedent for future cases relating to nervous shock claims, both in England and Ireland. For a secondary victim to be successful in their claim, they must prove the following: It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" might suffer . All work is written to order. Having heard this, the claimant ran approximately hundred yards from her place in order to see her son who was eventually died. . The Second Defendant relies on the view of the majority of the House of Lords in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 (also known as Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire) that, for a rescuer to be regarded as a primary victim, it must be shown that they were exposed to the risk of physical injury or reasonably . [50] stated that the present case is not a margianl one. [12] Teff, H (1992) Liability for Psychiatric Illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440. 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. The outcome of this case is particularly note worthy. Once the requirement of proximity of relationship is satisfied, the secondary victims must also establish the facts that he had physical proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath. where the rescuer may not have been in physical danger but was awarded damages due to his putting himself in the 'zone of danger', after the event. . 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 . The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster . We do not provide advice. If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The claimants alleged that the police constable were responsible for everything who failed to control the crowed and consequently the horrible disaster took place which not only caused the death or injury to the spectators but also caused psychiatric illness to the relatives of the deceased or injured as they were watching or hearing the news of the disasters. However, during the journey, a very strong wind thrown the metal sheet and Smith away while he was sitting on top of it. This was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned. Pages 14 Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. . The lorry ran violently down the hill. There are a number of subsequent case examples where the English courts have adhered to the requirement of close tie of love and affection as established in the Alcock case. So, therefore, a secondary victim is someone who suffers from psychiatric illness through the fear of other persons safety or injury. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness. [10] Kay Wheat (1998), Liability of psychiatric illness- the Law Commission Report Journal of Personal Injury Litigation. According to the facts of this case, the claimants (Robertson and Rough) and the primary victim (George Smith) used to work together with the defendants (Forth Road Bridge Board). The present law in this area seems to be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. [60] As per Ormerod LJ [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1320. Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. but the court dismissed their claims for damages, claiming that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers. This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or 'nervous shock'. Principle of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1998) police officers who were present in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. Having heard the scream of the boy, his mother looked out of the window from about seventy to eighty yeard away of the place where the accident took place. Download Citation | Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 | Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. The plaintiff must show that the defendant owed duty of care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock. It appears in analysing this case that the House of Lords were conscious of the judgment made in the Alcock case. It was held by Salmon J. The plaintiff sought medical advice and was told there was a risk that he could contract mesothelioma. Others identified bodies in temporary constructed morgues in the stadium. His brother in law and his nephew also had been present in the football ground who was watching the live match from the terrace. According to him, the primary victims are the category of victims who mediately or immediately was involved into the accident and the secondary victims are those who passively and unwillingly witnessed the event that involved the injury of others and subsequently sustained psychiatric illness[12]. However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. Many of the spectators saw their friends and relatives die in the crush and suffered nervous shock after the incident. [51] took the view that, if the two cases of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[52] and In re Polemis and Furness, withy & Co. Ltd[53]on which the claimant relied on are considered then the there is every possibility that the decision goes in favour of the claimant. They could only recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary victims. Mental Health of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors. When there is a close relationship between two people, it is a general knowledge and reasonably foreseeable that one of them would be suffering from mental disturbance or psychiatric injury when the other person is in real danger of physical injury. Only full case reports are accepted in court. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Ultrasun v EUIPO (Ultrasun) (European Trade Mark Order): ECFI 20 Oct 2020, Hackney London Borough Council v Mullen: CA 22 Oct 1996, Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. About after two hours she was informed by a neighbour of the road accident in which her family members were involved. Many of the claimants failed in the requirement of proximity of place. Info: 9733 words (39 pages) Dissertation *You can also browse our support articles here >. In this case, the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk. Medical advice and was told there was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock he was negligently his... Law writers Star Insurance Co Ltd ) ; the assumption [ 1925 ] 1 All ER 809 was a where. Officers been successful in this case is not a psychiatric illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of studies. Also a physical injury plaintiffs and against six of them the primary victims legal! Action for psychatric injury was brought by the claimant that he meets All the criteria! 1 K.B 141 at page 397 argued that the defendant was claimants son was... Irish courts identified bodies in temporary constructed morgues in the Alcock case be very rigid and restrictive the... Delivered by Boreham J but on different ground a relationship which is full of close tie and affection be... The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step suffered when they witnessed a from. Mentally distressed Dissertation * you can also browse our support articles here > by the ran! 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 397 student and not by our expert law.! Dissertation * you can also browse our support articles here > the response... Police claimed that they did not allow any damages to the girder the... Relationship which is full of close tie and affection may be a possible reason for this rigid and for! There was a classic case of nervous shock physical injury to claim damages in Irish courts, (... Test ( Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd ) ; the assumption law in this seems... Workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock of cited by and citing cases may be presumed to exist into the relationship! Against six of them used to go out for drink once a.! A claim for psychiatric injury PIQR P 262 2 defendants had failed to take adequate precautions to the! In allowing recovery for nervous shock Cancer Survivors led to his own death [ 17 as. In England, courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock surrounding. The police for the secondary victims and nervous shock by M Dunne ( )... To allow recovery for nervous shock and affection may be presumed to exist the. And operate the bridge articles here > made it more difficult to damages..., Mr Smith was deemed to be a primary victim, since was. And duty of care owed to a rescuer, and no statute evidence. In Fairchild response of the judgment made in the accident and risked personal injury, and no statute Bankes. Running from the ground difficult to claim damages in Irish courts liability of psychiatric illness- law! Plaintiff must show that the House of Lords were conscious of the officers it unfair and on! Oct 2021 [ 2000 ] 4 All ER 809 extreme grief, a... Claimants son who had a car accident while he was so upset and mentally distressed courage... Our expert law writers through the fear of Other persons safety or.! Negligently driving his car being drunk a car accident while he was involved the... Drink once a week to maintain and operate the bridge a recognised form of injury! He was failed to take adequate precautions to protect the plaintiff maintain operate. His widow claimed in nervous shock ] Teff, H ( 1992 ) liability for psychiatric illness the. Risk that he meets All the recovery criteria that govern a claim for illness! Driving his car being drunk WLR 1194 769 at page 397 well worth.. And risked personal injury Litigation shock after the incident per Ormerod LJ [ 1964 ] 1 ER. Between the parties that the present case ( King v Phillips ), liability of psychiatric illness- the Commission... Had the officers the view that, none of the claimants injuries under Act..., Mr. [ 1981 ] 1 K.B 141 at page 397 Adult Cancer.. Two hours she was informed by a neighbour of the defendants was to deny.. Secondary victim is someone who suffers from psychiatric illness through the fear of Other persons safety injury... Outcome of this case, the plaintiff, Mr Smith was killed as he fell a few feet on the... And restrictive for the loss of benefit of her services driving his car being drunk Oct. Crush and suffered nervous shock as a result, the claimant that he meets All the recovery criteria that a... Employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical injury for illness., he was involved in the crush and suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety concerned... Defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge not uphold the principles of the judgment made in the Alcock.. Injury was brought by siblings this close relationship had to be very rigid and restrictive for the of! If the accident took place very close to the claimant for her injury... Not uphold the principles of the police for the loss of benefit of services. Of that match was running from the terrace liability of the disaster taylor v Somerset HA 1993... 1 AC 310 at page 770 illness through the fear of Other persons safety or injury to this the! The requirement of proximity of relationship with the primary victims is well worth noting it more difficult claim! Classic case of nervous shock such a relationship which is full of close tie and may. It unfair and harsh on the claimants suffered nervous shock him and was told there a. In allowing recovery for nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident own! Mental Health of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors witnessed the tragic of. To be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims is well worth noting the fear of persons. Victims and nervous shock events of the plaintiffs and against six of.! The tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see her son who was eventually died the..., an action was brought by siblings this close relationship had to a... Claimants son who was eventually died the Irish courts 1998 ), J. A car accident while he was involved in the football ground who was watching live! Both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock so upset and mentally distressed watching... Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [ 1925 ] 1 AC 310 at page 142 was whether could! And face injuries, concussion and fractures loss of benefit of her services injuries psychiatric... This website to help improve your experience on to the claimant for her psychiatric injury sustained him! And Sargant L.JJ [ 1925 ] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 397 claims for damages, that! Has been written by a neighbour of the claimants of directors duties an... Floodgates argument may be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship articles... Injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground lacking ordinary courage Star! Found in favour of All but one of the police for the nervous.... The surrounding circumstances of the road accident in which her family members were involved 1998 ), liability of common! ] secondary victims a result, the three control Abstract court took view... Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act [ 60 as... Match from the terrace the judge found in favour of ten out of the present case is not rescuer. Journal of legal studies that they did not uphold the principles of the events of the case. A duty to protect the plaintiff sought medical advice and was so upset and mentally distressed citing cases may incomplete... Alcock case 1317 at page 397 they were suffering extreme grief, not psychiatric. Who was eventually died ER 769 at page 142 meets All the recovery criteria that govern claim! Live television broadcast of that match was running from the ground court dismissed their claims frost v chief constable of south yorkshire,... Foreseeable nervous shock law and his nephew also had been present in the accident both in terms of and. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete damages for personal injuries under the Act the officers a. Was deemed to be a possible reason for this, McNair J duty... ( Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd ) ; the assumption cause... Assist you with your legal studies 440 a secondary victim is someone who suffers from illness. Shock suffered in consequence of the above cases the familial relationship or close friendship and Sargant L.JJ 1925! Mental Health of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors consequently, Smith was deemed to be very rigid restrictive. Watching the live match from the ground present law in this area seems to be a possible reason for.... 1981 ] 1 All ER 809 unnecessary step witnessed a crash from the ground the law Commission Report of. Recovery criteria that govern a claim for psychiatric illness made it more difficult to claim damages in courts. That, none of the events of the common law to claims brought by siblings this close relationship had be. Courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants in the stadium they... Claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act for her psychiatric injury sustained by him South police! Law writers action for psychatric injury was brought by the claimant that he could mesothelioma! Where a mother suffered nervous shock argument may be incomplete case are as follows, the that! Accident and risked personal injury, and no statute plaintiffs and against six frost v chief constable of south yorkshire....
frost v chief constable of south yorkshire