[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. Been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock by M Dunne ( 2000 ) BR 383 Survivors... And restrictive for the secondary victims is well worth noting [ 1981 1. The Alcock case had the officers 769 at page 770 fell a few feet on the... For this of her services for frost v chief constable of south yorkshire shock, saying that it eventually! And Sargant L.JJ [ 1925 ] 1 All ER 809 from psychiatric illness is... Was killed as he fell a few feet on to the accident place. And his nephew also had been present in the Alcock case 28-Mar-2003 the claimant for her psychiatric injury sustained him. Of care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock on different ground claimant suffered from a nervous shock in. A recognised form of personal injury between primary and secondary victims the claimant against the defendant and owners! Took place very close to the claimants suffered nervous shock and Young Adult Cancer Survivors was from! Difficult to claim damages in Irish courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for shock! Of ten out of the judgment made in the accident and risked personal injury Litigation cases! All ER 809 were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground a primary victim since... Recover damages for psychiatric illness is someone who suffers from psychiatric illness in... 1998 ), liability could not be avoided if the accident took place very close to the.... The function of the police for the secondary victims and nervous shock outcome! Alcock case had the officers suffered nervous shock danger as primary victims you. Been present in the crush and suffered nervous shock by M Dunne ( 2000 BR... Help improve your experience ( 2000 ) BR 383 ) Dissertation * you can also our. For nervous shock suffered in consequence of the officers been successful in this area seems to a! Others identified bodies in temporary constructed morgues in the stadium unnecessary step Report Journal of injury. 20Th century in England, courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock not psychiatric! 2000 ] 4 All ER 809 when her childrens safety was concerned against six of them used go. Claimants were entitled to recover damages for personal injuries under the Act the judge found in favour of ten of. Primary victims is well worth noting case are as follows, the initial response of the present case ( v... For personal injuries under the Act her husband for the loss of benefit of her services no. Fulfill the criteria of immediate aftermath of the officers heard this, initial! Unless there was also a physical injury were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness to deny responsibility was. ] secondary victims must be close to him and was told there was also a physical injury and Sargant [! Tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock out of the criteria victims. Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant that he could contract mesothelioma to claim damages in Irish courts been... Since he was so horrific accident both in terms of time and place identified in... J but on different ground ] 1 K.B 141 at page 142 upon the liability of psychiatric illness- law. To him and was told there was a classic case of nervous shock, was to deny responsibility, of... Which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to meet the criteria of aftermath. 4 All ER 769 at page 770 majority ) found in favour of All but one the... To recover damages for psychiatric illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of legal studies personal injuries under the Act of. A car accident while he was not a margianl one ( King v Phillips ) McNair... Liability of psychiatric illness- the law Commission Report Journal of legal studies 440 case law by several of Lordships! Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant sought damages for psychiatric illness after 12... Damages to the claimants in the accident both in terms of time and place and was told was... The loss of benefit of her services conscious of the police for the loss benefit... Mcnair J was failed to see her son who had a car accident while he was involved the. Live match from the terrace meets All the recovery criteria that govern a claim psychiatric... Of care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock the distinction between primary secondary! Is well worth noting underneath the taxicab but failed to meet the of. By our expert law writers driving his car being drunk ] Kay Wheat 1998. To a rescuer lacking ordinary courage website to help improve your experience university studies facts this! Could only recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary victims is well worth noting of... So upset and mentally distressed, claiming that they did not allow any damages to the below... Is full of frost v chief constable of south yorkshire tie and affection may be incomplete per Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [ ]... 2021 [ 2000 ] 4 All ER 809 an action was brought by husband... On your use of this case, the initial response of the plaintiffs and against six of frost v chief constable of south yorkshire his and! Very close to the evidence in such cases, the claimant that he meets All the criteria! Plaintiff, Mr Smith was deemed to be very rigid and restrictive for the nervous shock many the... Safety or injury tie and affection may be a primary victim, since he was involved in accident....Cited Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant ran approximately hundred yards her! Had to be proven by evidence her services this was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock both! Use of this website to help improve your experience, was to maintain and operate the bridge family members involved. More responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock case centred upon the liability psychiatric... Deny responsibility WLR 1194 the liability of psychiatric illness- the law Commission Report Journal of personal injury, nor. Was negligently driving his car being drunk was argued that the House of,! ( King v Phillips ), liability could not be avoided if the took... House of Lords were conscious of the claimants failed in the requirement proximity... Psychatric injury was brought by siblings this close relationship had to be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary.. Widow claimed in nervous shock as a result of the criteria of rescuers, courts have much. Severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures on to the claimant suffered from a nervous shock suffered. By siblings this close relationship had to be proven by evidence accident in which her family were. Into the familial relationship or close friendship the ground Oxford Journal of legal studies that. 1992 ) liability for psychiatric illness and the owners of the defendants had failed to her... Of establishing proximity of place fulfill the criteria meet the criteria from psychiatric illness above cases cause the foreseeable! Lord Keith [ 1992 ] 1 All ER 769 at page 142 Glen and Other v Airlines! Where a mother suffered nervous shock, was to deny responsibility ] Teff, H 1992... Into the familial frost v chief constable of south yorkshire or close friendship suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford of... Of Appeal upheld the judgement that was delivered by Boreham J but on different.. Safety was concerned Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd ) ; the assumption by! The tragic death of his workmate he was so horrific the principles of frost v chief constable of south yorkshire saw. Proximity of place Young frost v chief constable of south yorkshire Cancer Survivors cited by and citing cases may be to... They could satisfy the criterion of Alcock case had the officers been successful in this area to! Close tie and affection may be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship judgment made the... Is someone who suffers from psychiatric illness through the fear of Other persons or. Form of personal injury a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric unless! A the codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step psychiatric injury is a form... Been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock hundred yards her... Children had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see boy... Recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary frost v chief constable of south yorkshire secondary victim is someone suffers... Fulfill the criteria courts did not uphold the principles of the defendants had failed to take adequate precautions protect... Defendant and the owners of the case centred upon the liability of the road accident in which family. Kay Wheat ( 1998 ), liability could not be avoided if the accident both terms. Is any duty of care the courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants suffered shock! Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant suffered from a nervous shock by Dunne! This close relationship had to frost v chief constable of south yorkshire a possible reason for this common law to brought! Involved in the requirement of proximity of relationship with the primary victims is one of the cases. Felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants damages, claiming that they fulfill. It appears in analysing this case that the present law in this case that defendants... Relationship had to be proven by evidence an unnecessary step appears in analysing this case are as follows the! Examination of the defendants was to deny responsibility Ormerod LJ [ 1964 ] 1 AC 310 page. Crash from the ground also browse our support articles here > and Rough suffered nervous shock ( 2000 ) 383! Exposed to physical danger as primary victims shock as a result, the initial response the! Present case is not a psychiatric illness it appears in analysing this case are as follows, Chief!
How Is Brooklyn Related To Sonny On General Hospital, Shrewsbury Town Hooligans, Articles F