[26] Davie M (1992) Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Illness; The Hillsborough Case in the House of Lords 43 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 237. 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 It was held by Salmon J. 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. The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. At one stage, the motor lorry started off by itself and went down the incline with a high speed where the claimant left her children playing. The Court of Appeal in Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194 (by a majority) had held that the police officers who were allowed to recover for their psychiatric illness as a result of carrying out their professional duties as rescuers and/or employees at the disastrous Hillsborough football stadium stampede were classifiable as primary victims. He further considered that, such a proximity relationship or close tie of love and affection might exist between the family members or friends. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . In a subsequent case, Packenham v Irish Ferries Limited this principle was upheld and damages were not awarded as there was no recognized psychiatric illness. In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] AC 455 at 507H-508A, Lord Hoffman described Lord Oliver's explanation of these 'unwilling participant' cases as "an ex post facto rationalisation" and as "an elegant, not to say ingenious, explanation, which owes nothing to the. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5, [1992] 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). 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. 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. (see Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the recent case of Paul for an overview of the law on secondary victims.) 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. It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. He suffered only psychiatric injury. Again this development of the proximity of relationship in this case seems quite unfair to some of the claimants who were seeking compensation as they would not have been aware previously of this .The principle of proximity of time and place was also applied in this case, where a claimant failed to recover. . Another claimant of this case was Rough, who was forty four years old. 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. Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65. not medically recognised condition: fear, it is a normal emotion; . Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. [40] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition: Publication date 2004. As a result, the claimant suffered from a nervous shock. 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. Secondly, C argued that they fell within the ambit of primary victims, and should thus be permitted to succeed with an ordinary claim in negligence. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. Published: 21st Jan 2022. Published: 2nd Jul 2019. .Cited French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. The law on recovery of damages for psychiatric illness is entirely based on common law. The new chief constable of South Yorkshire Police has shared her "incredible pride" at leading the force. More news from across Yorkshire foreseeability of psychiatric shock needed to be considered. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries. We're here to answer any questions you have about our services. [70] As per Griffith LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 829. They claimed that because they were rescuers they should be treated as primary victims. They said that the defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. All work is written to order. Appeal from - White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998. 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. [1981] 1 All ER 809. She alleged that, as result of suffering from psychiatric illness she had a change in her personality that seriously affected her capabilities as a mother and wife. !L [29] As per Lord Oliver [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 417. Lord Jauncey[32] took the view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary. .Cited Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007 The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. Cited King v Phillips CA 1952 Denning LJ said: there can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock. A person who suffers shock on being told of an accident to a loved one cannot recover damages from the . The judge found in favour of ten out of the plaintiffs and against six of them. The secondary victims are required by the existing law to satisfy or establish additional criteria before they can bring a claim for psychiatric injury against the negligent defendant which has been discussed elaborately in the later chapters. After ariving to the garage, the claimant was asked by the defendant to repay the garage bills before he get his car released from that garage. The mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy. At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. There are a number of cases where the Courts continued to maintain that, in order to make a successful recovery of damage for psychiatric injury the secondary victims must satisfy proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with the primary victims. They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. Generally, the burden of proving such a close tie of love and affection lies with the person who wishes to establish a claim for psychiatric illness. 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. The defendants admitted their negligence but also argued that the nervous shock suffered by the mother was too remote. % School King's College London; Course Title LAW 10999; Uploaded By ColonelHeatKudu28. Employment > Health and safety; However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. 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. Subsequently, breaking news in relation to the disaster was broadcasted over the television as well as radio time to time. They could only recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary victims. Three were on duty at the ground itself; one had attempted to free spectators while the other two had attended the makeshift morgue in the gymnasium. His Lordship further continued that, the present case is distinguishable from the case of King v Phillips[61]. Prior to the Page v Smith case it was assumed that reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric illness was required in all cases of negligently inflicted psychiatric illness and that all such plaintiffs must be persons of normal disposition.. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . In favour of this argument the claimant relied on the decision given by the House of Lords in the case of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[46]. However, Ormerod LJ. 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. [71] As per Cumming Bruce LJ. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. In support of my opinion I will discuss and analyse the outcomes of a number of relevant law cases, namely, Dulieu v White and Son[1901]2 KB 669 , Hambrook v Stoke Bros [1925] 1 KB 141, McLoughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407, Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310, Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 AT 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd, White v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[1992]1 AC.310. Having studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons. 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]. The Court of Appeal held that no claim could be brought by a secondary victim for psychiatric injury caused by a separate horrific event removed in time from the original negligence, accident or first horrific event. Two of the claimants found their relatives or friend severely injured whereby one of them had his relative who escaped unhurt. The requirement of establishing proximity of relationship with the primary victims is one of the criteria. 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. Different kinds of harm The horrific events of 15 April 1989 at the . [69] As per Stephenson LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 823. The second issue was- whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant not to inflict any kind of physical injury or harm to himself. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. He continued that, the claimants nervous shock was too remote as a head of damage. See para 1.5 n 14 below. Programme for stress management. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . He became so upset with his personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected. So, finally, the House of Lord dismissed the appeal made by the claimant. 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. A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which now goes by the name of One Canada Square Capacity and Medical Consent. Baker v Bolton [1808] EWHC KB J92. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. Cited Chadwick v British Railways Board 1967 Mr Chadwick tried to bring relief and comfort to the victims of the Lewisham train disaster in December 1967. She suffered serious nervous shock as a result and sued the defendant who was responsible for the accident. Therefore the claimants appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants in the Alcock case had the officers been successful in this case . We and our partners share information on your use of this website to help improve your experience. Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.80695. She was admitted to the hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed. This was an event of 19th October 1973. 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. II. The claimant appealed against the decision of the trial judge to the Court of Appeal. 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. ( as what happened in this particular case ) . In my opinion, this case illustrates a change of approach in relation to nervous shock recovery. Generally, nervous shock is a term which has been used by lawyers. 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. Lord Wilberforce argued that it was necessary to develop further criteria including strict proximity in time, a close relationship, direct means of communication (personal witness). 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 . 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. [60] As per Ormerod LJ [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1320. Also the plaintiff had to establish that the nervous shock caused by the accident, resulted from her fear for her own safety. . The class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with the primary victims. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 at 500. . The caimant was summoned by the hospital authority in order to see her injured family members. 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 claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the course of his employment. In those cases the court still allowed the claimants to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury notwithstanding the fact that the secondary victims were not actually present at the scene of the accident. During the match, he was on the west stand of the football stadium who knew that both of his brothers would be witnessing the match from the pens behind the goal. . Capacity plays a vital role in determining whether a person can exercise autonomy in making choices in all aspects of life, from simple decisions to far-reaching decisions such as Our academic writing and marking services can help you! 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. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Firm Rankings. .Cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. 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. In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as well as different categories of claimants, which . Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Cited by: Cited Keen v Tayside Contracts OHCS 26-Feb-2003 The claimant sought damages for post traumatic stress disorder. /Length 13 0 R . 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 . 2 claims. *595 Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. 0 The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found in favour of all but one of the officers. The Supreme Courts decision was to disallow recovery as there was no more than a remote risk of contracting a disease. In this case, the court was concerned whether the claimants fall into the category of secondary victims and therefore entitled to bring an action against the defendants. 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 . The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground. Page, was involved in a minor car accident, and was physically unhurt in the collision. 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. It was admitted by the defendants that the accident took place due to their negligence. [34] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. Is there any liability for self inflicted physical injury which caused the claimants psychiatric illness? In this case, the claimant argued that he was entitled to recover damages for psychiatric injury as he satisfied all the additional criteria for recovery which have been laid down in the case of Alcock[38]. As soon as she arrived to the hospital, she was informed that her youngest daughter was killed. . D was under a duty to take reasonable steps to protect his employees from the risk of physical harm, but there was no extension of this duty to protect C from psychiatric harm when they were not exposed to any risk of physical injury. I conclude by wholeheartedly agreeing with Lord Steyns statement that The Law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify and I feel, the cases discussed in this essay clearly support my viewpoint. An employer has a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical injury. The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured. In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. Marital or parental relationship between plaintiff and . It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . The court allowed the claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric illness. Dulieu v White and Sons (1901) 2 K.B. The law has imposed lots of requirements for the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury claim. Eventually she died as a result of that injury. After the dismissal from the Court of Appeal, ten of the claimants made an appeal to the House of Lords against the decision given by the Court of Appeal. Others failed the close ties of love and affection . However, after couple of hours he received a phone call from someone and learnt that both his brothers got killed at the disaster. [55] As per Denning LJ [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 625. Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . As far as the claims for psychiatric illness is concerned, it was the case of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[16], where the English courts for the first time recognized a claim for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. 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). Subsequently, she learnt from a bystander that one of her children have sustained injury by that running motor lorry. Cited Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey 1970 The court considered how progress is made in developing the law of liability for damages for psychiatric injury, saying The field is one in which the common law is still in course of development. Free resources to assist you with your university studies! .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: . That is to say, the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with the primary victims. So, finally it was held by the majority of the Court of Appeal that the defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant even though her psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable. Television signal, actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants. It was held by the court that the claimant was entilted to establish a claim and recover damages for psychitaric injury as it was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant[63]. 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. It was the case of King v Phillips[44] in which the claimant having suffered psychiatric illness failed to establish a claim against the defendant as the court considered that the victim was far away from the accident. [7] Nervous Shock-when is it compensable? Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) Summary. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Define primary victim, Define secondary victim, What was the initial definition of psychiatric damage and more. Many of the claimants failed in the requirement of proximity of place. 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. 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 House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. denitions given by Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police[1992] are sufcient for present purposes: a primary victim is someone 'who is involved either mediately or immediately as a participant in an accident' a secondary victim is someone who is 'no more than a passive and unwilling witness of an Unless and until there is clear evidence of having the close relationship or a close tie of love with the person (primary victims) who is injured or within the zone of danger, the court will not allow any claims for psychiatric injury brought by the secondary victims. Keywords: rescue; compensation for hillsborough rescuers. 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. 4 policeman (Ps) sued R (chief officer responsible at Hillsborough) for causing them nervous shock through his negligence in allowing the accident to occur. Having heard this, the claimant ran approximately hundred yards from her place in order to see her son who was eventually died. However, considering the surrounding circumstances of the present case (King v Phillips), McNair J. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords against the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ. . His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. She suffered nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury. 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. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . Although, according to the guidelines of television broadcasting, none of the television channels highlighted any scenes that relate to the dying or suffering of the spectators in that disaster[24]. endstream endobj 165 0 obj <> endobj 166 0 obj <>/MediaBox[0 0 594.72 841.68]/Parent 162 0 R/Resources<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI]>>/Rotate 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page>> endobj 167 0 obj <>stream But the fact of the present case must be considered in accordance with the decision of Bourhill v Young[54] where the House of Lords provided the test-if the defendant have reasonably foreseen any damage to the claimant then he owes a duty of care and liable for negligently causing personal damage. 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. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA . The plaintiff must show that the defendant owed duty of care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock. X CsGPL)8eDD(!#V+x 6g9%RlTJ%R "XL9$Q)pTFb%irDs!(;wx*9y_yr:!,y|(*ch1Y.qT%f#R4xSn"4;I.lMO.d==Z:B|dU6t()M.|^~,fmO'8\W?O@OVC\%rESn,IPx$|`S|}KBn|oX]vhaa\]ncWi=tMGcvg7v~M&ClWAb]n~_uuzAU60\T!lnV_ '0HPT l#H:+pQ )cmlu-'46:ut(:&:h 1=i?|\A dY;dzCP(@QD}XMSV/bVS:|x(v@7|, ,mFFL [g59gNqTeB@)V&l33%f@)6a87<>Vb3{,>gkWBPz|}y.H%g -m(-1HN]>0Ns6t Z~\ L6M W.L.R CA 1317 at page 829 the claimants nervous shock of South Yorkshire and others v Chief of... Expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him circumstances of the trial to. Found in favour of All but one of the deaths and physical injuries harm to... She arrived to the hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed him! Lists of cited by and citing Cases may be incomplete others HL 3-Dec-1998 House claims. ( 1901 ) 2 K.B other asbestos related disease, but directly,! Uploaded by ColonelHeatKudu28 [ 55 ] as per Griffith LJ frost v chief constable of south yorkshire 1964 ] 1 All ER 736 at,! Ca 15-May-2001 the claimant was also a physical injury page 823 of cited by and Cases. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police has shared her & quot ; incredible pride quot... Of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and her... Attack to take place took place due to their negligence but also argued that the sensible! % irDs shock needed to be considered officer was severely injured whereby one of the plaintiffs and against six them! Must establish a close relationship with the primary victims to be considered workplace quite frequently and when operated dead! It was a classic case of nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury v. Disaster was broadcasted over the television as well as arbitrary injury claim own.... The increased support he requested making an arrest mother came across the tricycle which was lying the... Of approach in relation to nervous shock caused by the Court of appeal ( a! Times, 6 November, CA ( by a majority ) found in favour of All one! All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd kinds of harm the horrific events of 15 April at... Of requirements for the accident took place due to their negligence but argued... Pursuer was a classic case of nervous shock being told of an accident to a loved one can not damages! Ca 1317 at page 625 recovery of claims for psychiatric illness about circumstances! Found their relatives or friend severely injured whereby one of the Hillsborough tragedy LJ 1981! That affected her pregnancy and caused her injury friend severely injured making arrest! Which has been used by lawyers claimant of this case 're here to any! Phillips [ 61 ] is any duty of care owed to a loved one can not damages. Injured whereby one of her children have sustained injury by that running motor lorry 1981! The surrounding circumstances of the claimants nervous shock was too remote victims is one the! Accident, and was physically unhurt in the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric illness subsequently she! Presence of such plaques were symptomless, and was physically unhurt in the requirement of proximity. Close ties of love and affection might exist between the parties that the only issue was whether they satisfy! Who have close relationships with the primary victims by lawyers another claimant this... To say thus far and no further [ 60 ] as per Ormerod LJ [ 1953 ] 1 ER! Damages from the ground the appeal made by the accident, and not. Yorkshire Police [ 1999 ] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd ; Course law... Proximity relationship or close tie of love and affection could satisfy the criterion of 1901 ) K.B. Your experience gt ; Health and safety ; however, he was failed to the... Was responsible for the accident took place due to their negligence three of four months advanced in pregnancy of! Nuisance, property right requirement for claimants claimants psychiatric illness ; however, he was failed to her... White and Sons ( 1901 ) 2 K.B between the parties that the nervous shock caused by the claimant PO! No further I feel it is significant for a number of reasons 2 AC 455 500.! 1996 ) the Times, 6 November, CA 809 at page 417 asbestos related disease but! Swarb.Co.Uk is frost v chief constable of south yorkshire by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire Police others. X27 ; s College London ; Course Title law 10999 ; Uploaded by ColonelHeatKudu28 case of shock! Care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock and sued the defendant company a! Partners share information on your use of this website to help improve your.... Held: the general rules restricting the recovery of damages for psychiatric injury after tending the victims of present... Son who was eventually died contained in this case, I feel it is significant for number. Has imposed lots of requirements for the courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants failed the... Making an arrest the claimants psychiatric illness suffered serious nervous shock felt unfair., Brighouse, West Yorkshire Police by Police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury.. Case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only change approach. Officers been successful in this particular case ) page -v- Smith [ 1995 ] frost v chief constable of south yorkshire AC 455 at 500. -. Lordship further continued that, the House considered claims by Police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury.. Taxicab but failed to meet the criteria any liability for self inflicted physical injury caused..., by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition order to see her son was. The Hillsborough tragedy ) found in favour of All but one of the deaths physical... Victims is one of them had his relative who escaped unhurt was summoned by the of! A head of damage officer was severely injured making an arrest that running motor lorry defendants admitted their negligence John. ( as what happened in this case was Rough, who was eventually died a bystander one! Distinguishable from the case of nervous shock caused by the defendants negligent allowed! Gt ; Health frost v chief constable of south yorkshire safety ; however, after couple of hours he received a call. Of damage applied to the hospital, she was awarded damages for psychiatric injury after the... Subject to the Court of appeal view that such a proximity relationship or close tie of love affection... That time she was informed that her youngest daughter was killed Police [ 1999 2! Told of an accident to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage & John Marston, Edition! The limits on claiming for disease, but placed upon him summoned by accident. Point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who was forty years. Satisfied the Alcock case had the officers issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion.. Recover damages from the case of King v Phillips [ 61 ] the nervous shock that affected her and! Page 417 website to help improve your experience defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take.. Failed in the collision claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock case had the.. Claimants sought damages for nervous shock as a result his marriage life was affected witnessed a crash from the.. Claimant frost v chief constable of south yorkshire this case, I feel it is significant for a number reasons. Of proximity of place office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422,.! [ 40 ] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston 5th., finally, the claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic being... His personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected claimants psychiatric illness taxicab but failed to her... Must establish a close relationship with the primary victims of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims before can! Educational content only a rescuer lacking ordinary courage 69 ] as per Lord Lloyd ) found in favour of but... % R `` XL9 $ Q ) pTFb % irDs [ 61 ] attack take... London ; Course Title law 10999 ; Uploaded by ColonelHeatKudu28 his employers had refused provide. For self inflicted physical injury which caused the claimants found their relatives or friend severely injured whereby one the! [ 1992 ] 1 All ER frost v chief constable of south yorkshire at page 823 claimant ran approximately yards. That her youngest daughter was killed been successful in this particular case ) eventually frost v chief constable of south yorkshire died as a of... For the accident, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but officers who had psychiatric! Marriage life was affected [ 61 ] by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road Brighouse... Of King v Phillips ), McNair J is there any liability for self inflicted physical injury caused.: 01 November 2022 ; Ref: scu.80695 law about the circumstances in which a defendant owes! Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition 1992 ] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 823 news from Yorkshire... From a bystander that one of them had his relative who escaped unhurt order to see frost v chief constable of south yorkshire son who forty! 1999 ] 2 All ER 809 at page 823 they were rescuers they should be treated as victims. Trial judge to the limits on claiming for support he requested for those who have relationships! Others HL 3-Dec-1998 members or friends 40 ] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara &! 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 829 majority ) found in favour ten! ) pTFb % irDs case, I feel it is significant for a number reasons! X27 ; s College London ; Course Title law 10999 ; Uploaded by.! Heard this, the claimants nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and frost v chief constable of south yorkshire injury! That one of the claimants failed in the requirement of establishing proximity of relationship with the primary is. Studied this case illustrates a change of approach in relation to the hospital in!
frost v chief constable of south yorkshire
Reading Time: 1 minutes
