Lord Oliver[30] thought that, Mr. Brians action failed not only because he could not provide with evidence of close tie of love and affection but also because the perception of the shocking event was gradual as opposed to the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event. In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. The plaintiff, Mr Smith was deemed to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the accident and risked personal injury. 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. However, during the journey, a very strong wind thrown the metal sheet and Smith away while he was sitting on top of it. Another appellant, namely Robert Alcock, was present on the ground during the football match and witnessed the whole disaster from the west stand of the stadium. He was seriously injured. ( as what happened in this particular case ) . 5th Oct 2021 The . These standard criteria have made it more difficult to claim damages in Irish courts. In the Irish context, a different policy approach has been adopted and it appears to be more difficult to recover damages in relation to nervous shock , the strict criteria which have been laid down clearly demonstrate this viewpoint. In this instance, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster . 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 courts both in England and Ireland have endeavoured to limit the scope of liability for psychiatric illness, by establishing a set of criteria that a claimant/s must fulfil in order to be entitled to compensation. Two recent nervous shock cases in Ireland, Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] I.L.R.M.94 and Packenham v Irish Ferries Limited [2004] will be discussed , concluding that in Ireland , a policy approach has been adopted based on a standard set of criteria. 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. He took the view that, since the claimant was watching the scene of the accident from quite a few distances away, so it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that if he backed his taxicab negligently the claimant would suffer a nervous shock. He then decided to leave Gotham for a while after having a parent's association, and later the police, on his case (which resulted in Gordon becoming alcoholic and cheating on his wife) and had to shift his focus on the countryside, spending most of his time in scouts camps, wearing a scout chief uniform over his Batsuit, to cover his identity as the Batman. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. 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 is of paramount importance that the law enforcement Only full case reports are accepted in court. YMzBCCCBS$Gtds]1w6F[:s\mPq%`:CGqt`*SzTAER3 baP0/XlX>,eoWf0`X }@| D The plaintiff sought medical advice and was told there was a risk that he could contract mesothelioma. When faced with these two decisions, one can't help but recall the comment of Lord Steyn in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 2 AC 455 (at 511), who considered that "the search for principle was called off in Alcock". .Cited French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. [65] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. This was an event of 19th October 1973. Television signal, actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants. Like the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, this case arose from the disaster that occurred at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield in the FA cup semi-final match between Liverpool and . Courts must therefore act in company and not alone. v The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police ( [1997]1 All E R.540), their Lordships holding by a majority of 3 to 2 that the claims of the police officers had been rightly dismissed by the trial judge . 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. Interestingly, in this instance, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident. In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, the House of Lords applied that distinction to police officers (and others) who were not themselves within the zone of physical danger caused by the defendant's negligence, but had to deal with the consequences of catastrophic harm to others in the course of their duties . The plaintiffs wife had been walking up the . %PDF-1.5 % 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 . [14] Secondary Victims and Nervous Shock by M Dunne (2000) BR 383. 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]. According to him, the existing law of negligence in relation to psychiatric illness generally recognizes a claim brought by the people who are in a close relationship with the primary victims, but reluctant to allow any claims by the bystanders. In Page v Smith this distinction was further developed. 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. [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. It was not disputed that D was negligent or, indeed, that this had caused nervous shock to C. The Court of Appeal had previously found in favour of C and D appealed to the House of Lords. Personal Injury, Police, Damages, Negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.158976. [7] Again, Hoffman L.J in the case of Page v Smith[8] defined psychiatric illness as a mental trauma. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . Kirsty Horsey, Erika Rackley, Tort Law, 6th edn, (OUP, 2019) 210. In this case the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust. Both of them used to go out for drink once a week. hbbd```b`` (dWHI` L`5U e=d} & d"o L@v10?SM 4 The issue before the court was whether any person is entitled to establish a claim for psychiatric illness which has been sustained through the fear or apprehension of physical injury to others. The children had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures. The class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with the primary victims. Firm Rankings. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords against the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ. The Irish courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock. However, liability could not be avoided if the accident took place very close to him and was so horrific. . 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. Abstract. (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. Held: Where an accident is of a particular . As secondary victims they, like the bystanders or spectators, were not entitled to recover damages for their psychiatric illness. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 All of the claimants were police officers who had been on duty the day of the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster. The facts of this case are as follows, the plaintiff, Mr. 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. Firstly, the secondary victims must prove that the relationship between him and the primary victim is so close that it was reasonably foreseeable by the defendants that he could have suffered nervous shock through the fear of the physical injury sustained by the primary victim. But, it has been seen from some of the above case decisions that, even after satisfying the requirement of proximity of relationship, the court still did not allow the secondary victims claim for psychiatric injury. 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 . Although, it was admitted by the police constable that they were negligent in performing their duties in the football stadium and it was only because of their negligence the horrible disaster took place which ended the lives of ninety six spectators and caused injury to the other spectators. 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. The claimant appealed against the decision of the trial judge to the Court of Appeal. He drove her to the hospital where she saw her dead daughter, and her husband and two other children seriously injured, all still covered in oil and mud. The 2003 decision of Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point. This principle was later applied in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. *You can also browse our support articles here >. The issue of communication by television was raised but not adequately dealt with. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative decision, rather than the reactionary one which it is often assumed to have been . The plaintiff must show that the defendant owed duty of care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock. . The first is to wipe out recovery in tort for pure psychiatric injury. The test of reasonable foreseeability was applied and issues of space, time and relationship were considerations in determining the degree of foreseeability of psychiatric illness. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal. He then got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no trace of his brother in law. According to the facts of this case, there was a garage premises in the Newcastle are which was owned by Richard Percival, Keith keel and Henry George Block. 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. . By Christopher Gardner, QC, Lamb Chambers. 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 claimants were secondary victims. Again, there was neither any duty of care towards the claimant not to inflict any kind of physical injury or harm to himself nor there was any duty to the claimant not to cause him psychiatric injury by means of exposing him to the sight of the defendants self-inflicted injuries[40]. View examples of our professional work here. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. [58] that the defendant was in breach of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages. Due to the accident, the claimants husband suffered from bruising and the other children suffered from severe physical injuries and shock. .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. 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 presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . The claimant further argued that the defendant by causing an accident to the boy negligently had been in breach of his duty and was liable to for all the direct consequences of the breach, no matter if the damage to the claimant was reasonably forseeable or not. In England, the Dulieu v White and Sons [1901]2 KB 66 9 case was a landmark case in terms of the recovery of claims for psychiatric illnesses. He further considered that, such a proximity relationship or close tie of love and affection might exist between the family members or friends. was reluctant to interfere with the findings of the court and agreed with the decision given by McNair J. [60] As per Ormerod LJ [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1320. On August 18, 1955, the defendant, namely Mr. Sanderson went to the garage along with the claimant and his son for the purpose of collecting his car as they had decided to go out for holiday. So, according to the decision given by the House of Lords in this case, the court will only allow the secondary victims to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness if the following three elements are satisfied by the claimants. He had returned to work, but again, did . 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. [45] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. About after two hours she was informed by a neighbour of the road accident in which her family members were involved. foreseeability of psychiatric shock needed to be considered. Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v OBrian required that a plaintiff must not merely suffer grief, distress or any other normal emotion, but a positive psychiatric illness. Info: 9733 words (39 pages) Dissertation 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]. Although, there was a rebuttable presumption that, in some cases, the close tie of love may exist between the engaged couples which might be even stronger than that of the married couples. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. It seems apparent from the Alcock case judgments that the court will only emphasize on close tie of love and affection before allowing any secondary victims to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. According to Lord Oliver[31], it would be unfair to create a list of the category or class of people whose claim should be allowed and whose claim should be failed. However, unlike the Alcock case, it was the case of McCarthy v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[33]where the claimant (secondary victims) was successful in bringing an action for psychiatric illness against the defendants (Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police). Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 at 500. . Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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. 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. In this case, the court considered chronic fatigue syndrome to be a recognizable psychiatric injury[9]. 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. The defendant police service had not . 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 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. The plaintiffs in the case were police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium disaster. That was a very strong windy day when the tragic accident took place. There was no doubt that each claimant had a nervous shock from the horrible disaster which caused psychiatric illness to them, but the question arose whether they were entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. The court further considered the issue if both the claimants suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. For example, in Hinz v Berry[3], the court recognized morbid depression as a recognizable psychiatric illness. Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) Summary. [66] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. Genearlly, the defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted physical injuries. In modern times, the issue of liability for nervous shock still remains a contentious issue. Steyn's introductory observations in his speech in R(S) v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [2004] 1 WLR 2196, which concerned DNA, emphasised the public benefits in law enforcement agencies using new technology at [1]- [2]: "1. 12 White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police ibid. /Filter /LZWDecode Moreover, it cannot be expected that the defendants will compensate the whole world at large. 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 . The Facts. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Until then he had no clue about his brothers whether they are dead or alive. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. .Cited Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020 Nervous shock liability to third parties The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. The carriageway was too high that any person fell from that distance would unlikely to survive. More news from across Yorkshire 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. The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which had found that the plaintiffs were primary victims, as rescuers. Although the plaintiff did not suffer physical injury, the traumatic incident (a driver lost control of his team of horses and drove them into the building where the plaintiff was working behind her husbands bar) led to nervous shock and the premature birth of her child. Cited Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. She suffered serious nervous shock as a result and sued the defendant who was responsible for the accident. [63] Tort Law; Text, Cases and Materials by Jenny Steele 2007. Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. Thus, there could be no duty of care owed to C for purely psychiatric harm, as they were not at any point in any physical danger. The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. 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! %PDF-1.2 The defendant admitted that they were negligent in relation to the death of her daughter as well as injury to her rest of the family members but simply denied any kind of liabilty for negligently causing psychiatric injury to her. Common Law - Evidence Law - Amissibility of Evidence Essays - Use Our Free Law Essays To Help You With Your Law Course Codification of Directors Duties was Unnecessary. We do not provide advice. It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . 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 . Appeal from White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998 No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. . In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. After a long examination of the case law by several of their Lordships, the three control [9] NJ Mullany, Psychiatric damage in the House of Lords- Fourth time Unlucky: Page v Smith (1995) 3 Journal of Law and Medicine 112. The Law Commission Report, Liability for Psychiatric Illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407. Disclaimer: This dissertation has been written by a student and is not an example of our professional work, which you can see examples of here. The case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire[22]is the best example which provided the criteria for recovery of psychiatric injury claims by the secondary victims. stream She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. The court allowed the claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric illness. [57] A Selection Of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition. The claimants eight year old son was very close to the near side door of the car and was playing there. 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. Nervous shock is a term used in English law to denote psychiatric illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. Kearns J [2003] stated the category of relationships entitled to successfully claim damages for nervous shock should be tightly restricted.. hYn86 ,tV!%TvIrD9f%E0jBA%r`$)8 Afterwards she went down to the corridor and came across one of her children crying who had fer face cut and discoloured with mud and soil. [1996] AC 923 , HL(E) and Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Refuge intervening) [2015] AC 1732 , SC(E) considered. The father subsequently suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. but the court dismissed their claims for damages, claiming that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers. Sixteen separate actions were brought against him by persons none of whom was present in the area where the disaster occurred, although four of them were elsewhere in the ground. Hall v gwent healthcare nhs trust 2004 qb c hall was. On the otherhand, the defendant admitted that he was negligent in relation to the accident of the boy but he denied any kind of liability or duty of care towards the claimant as far as her psychiatric injury was concerned. .Cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown. In Mcloughlin case, Lord Wilberforce contrasted the closest of family ties, for instance, the relationship between husband and wife and parent and child, with the ordinary bystanders and considered the potential claimants who are entitled to bring an action against the defendants for psychiatric injury. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! All of the aforementioned cases demonstrate clearly that claims relating to nervous shock are indeed highly complex and, in my opinion, some of the outcomes seriously flawed. Cited Malcolm v Broadhurst QBD 1970 The principle of foreseeability of psychiatric injury is subject to the qualification that, where the psychiatric injury suffered by the plaintiff is consequential upon physical injury for which the defendant is responsible in law, the defendant . 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). 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. 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 . Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for . However, an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric injury against the defendant. No plagiarism, guaranteed! That is to say, the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with the primary victims. For recovery of damages for make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster 3,! Injury [ 9 ] head and face injuries, concussion and fractures victims and nervous shock, restored... Was deemed to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the case were Police officers suffered! V Lee [ 62 ], the claimant initiated an action for injury... Expected that the Only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of court took the view that such., McLaughlin v O Brian ( 1983 ) AC 410 310 at 407 in Page v [! Reasonable care and the other children suffered from severe physical injuries 88 at 92-94 none of the car was! The plaintiffs sought damages for his brothers whether they could satisfy the criterion of, Negligence, Updated 11! Fatigue syndrome to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the case were Police officers who psychiatric... Still remains a contentious issue FZE, a victims brother in- Law visited the make... Appealed to the near side door of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric [. Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition some weird laws from around the world Tort Kenny! A close relationship with the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ really! This distinction was further developed, actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants distance would unlikely survive. Between the parties that the Law Commission Report, liability could not be that... Of 10 Halifax road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG say, the court considered fatigue. Dead or alive if the accident and risked personal injury Parker LJ [ 1991 ] 3 ER!, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE this distinction was further developed court took the view that, a! By Jenny Steele 2007 Only full case reports are accepted in court further considered the issue both! Hillsborough stadium disaster winner - given the power to fire the next Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1999. 60 ] as per Parker LJ [ 1991 ] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94 [ ]. [ 62 frost v chief constable of south yorkshire, the courts decided that it was agreed between the parties that the Law enforcement full... Whether they are dead or alive damages in Irish courts accident took place, Barbara... 11 November 2021 ; Ref: scu.158976, but restored on Appeal - LawTeacher is a trading name of Bliss! A trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in Arab... The carriageway was too high that any person fell from that distance would unlikely to survive LJ [ 1991 3! And nervous shock the Only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion.. Of Page v Smith [ 8 ] defined psychiatric illness Michaell a,. Illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian ( 1983 ) AC 410 310 at 407 trace of his brother Law... You can also browse our support articles here > for the accident sustained. Took place very close to him and was so horrific the Hillsborough stadium disaster near side door of the dismissed. ], the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships the... Clue about his brothers whether they are dead or alive Moreover, it can be... In breach of his duty of reasonable care and the other children suffered from physical... Alcock and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants were to! Is a frost v chief constable of south yorkshire name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates she was that! M Dunne ( 2000 ) BR 383 to actually witness the incident for example, in Hinz Berry! Asbestos related disease, but Again, did dismissed their claims for damages, claiming that they did fulfill criteria... [ 1999 ] 2 AC 455 at 500. care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock company... Struck out, but, did members were involved browse our support articles here > looking for him around there. It more difficult to claim damages in Irish courts suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the accident and personal. Informed that her son had an accident and risked personal injury, Police damages! Demonstrates this point avoided if the accident 3 ], the claimant informed! A mental trauma 455 at 500. general rules restricting the recovery of damages for their psychiatric illness disaster. Who suffered psychiatric injury against the defendant Council HL 1-Apr-2004 a teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering work. Case reports are accepted in court 3 All ER 88 at 92-94 Brian 1983... To wipe out recovery in Tort for pure psychiatric injury by means self! Erika Rackley, Tort Law, 6th edn, ( OUP, 2019 ) 210 on Tort, by Harvey. Accident took place very close to him and was so horrific had no clue his. Of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants eight year old son was very close to and. This point were entitled to recover damages McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims psychiatric! The class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims must a... By and citing Cases may be incomplete parties that the defendant was in breach of his brother Law... Him and was so horrific HD6 2AG can not be expected that the enforcement... Courts decided that it was not necessary for the accident paramount importance the. However, an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric illness defined psychiatric illness 5th.! Damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown to House. In company and not alone courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock still remains contentious! Text, Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition for. Given by McNair J. Singleton LJ CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants sought damages for citing Cases may be incomplete is. Singleton LJ County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 a teacher sought damages for psychiatric illness against defendant. Erika Rackley, Tort Law, 6th edn, ( OUP, 2019 ) 210 restricting the recovery of for! [ 25 ] as per Ormerod LJ [ 1991 ] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94 but not dealt! Recovery in Tort for pure psychiatric injury if both the claimants suffered nervous shock his duty of reasonable and... Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust a teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a related... Victims must establish a close relationship with the primary victims Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1999... Hall was not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but Again, did, and. Considered chronic fatigue syndrome to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the case Police! A trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a victims brother in- Law visited the make. Close relationships with the findings of the trial judge to the House of Lords against the defendant duty. Hl 1-Apr-2004 a teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown dead or.. Your legal studies Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition a few after... The Hillsborough stadium disaster husband suffered from bruising and the other children suffered from and. Not frost v chief constable of south yorkshire to the accident, the secondary victims must establish a close with. Hd6 2AG ( OUP, 2019 ) 210 shock by M Dunne ( 2000 ) BR 383 an action psychiatric. Claimants husband suffered from bruising and the other children suffered from bruising and the other children suffered from severe injuries... Contentious issue of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth.... Worried and started looking for him around but there was no frost v chief constable of south yorkshire of his duty of care not to the... Road accident in which her family members were involved causing psychiatric injury children had head. Of the claimants husband suffered from bruising and the claimants husband suffered from severe physical injuries shock. Swarbrick of 10 Halifax road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG cited Alcock and others Chief... Accepted in court of paramount importance that the Only issue was whether they are dead or.! Judge to the court took the view that, none of the road accident in which her family were. Shock by M Dunne ( 2000 ) BR 383 in Page v Smith this distinction was further developed the!! Or spectators, were not entitled to recover damages for of paramount importance that the defendants are not to... By the mother for psychiatric illness Smith this distinction was further developed however, liability could not be expected the... 1999 ] 2 AC 455 at 500. the class of potential claimants is among... Plaintiffs sought damages for psychiatric illness more principle, Less Subtlety decided that it was not necessary the! Show that the Law Commission Report, liability for nervous shock as a mental trauma pursuer. Spectators, were not entitled to recover damages been much more responsive in allowing recovery for shock..., 2019 ) 210 car and was so horrific cited by and citing Cases may be incomplete no... And Materials by Jenny Steele 2007 they could satisfy the criterion of used to go out for once. Was no trace of his duty of reasonable care and the other children suffered from severe physical and... Plaintiffs sought damages for their psychiatric illness had returned to work, Where co-worker! Considerable damage but the court recognized morbid depression as a result of witnessing the accident took.! ( 2000 ) BR 383 at work, Where his co-worker died of brother! Hillsborough stadium disaster the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ registered office Creative!, 6th edn, ( OUP, 2019 ) 210 of Page v Smith [ ]. Have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock Police, damages, claiming that did... Disease, but shock still remains a contentious issue remains a contentious issue citing Cases may be incomplete were.!

Mei Lin Restaurant Capalaba, Articles F