Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . The House of Lords however, held that for the purposes of distinction between primary and secondary victims, that rescuers were not in a special position in the law. They took the big metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a pick up van. After a long examination of the case law by several of their Lordships, the three control 4 policeman (Ps) sued R (chief officer responsible at Hillsborough) for causing them nervous shock through his negligence in allowing the accident to occur. So the defendant submitted that, since the claimant was not present at the place where the accident took place, his action against the defendant should not be allowed by the court. 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 . The court allowed the claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric illness. No rule of public policy exists that excludes claim for nervous shock . . Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . . 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 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]. 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. According to Lord Ackner[28], if the secondary victim is a distant relative then the only way he can establish a claim is by means of showing a very close or intimate relationship with the primary victims which can be compared with the normal relationship between spouses or parent and children. 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. On the basis of the facts of this case, three preliminary questions arose which were as follows: The first issue was, whether the defendant (the primary victim/ son of the claimant) owes any duty of care towards the claimant (secondary victim) for not causing any psychiatric injury by self inflicted physical injuries. The appointment of the former Deputy Chief Constable Lauren Poultney was approved at a . 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. Eventually, his doctor prescribed him to take anti-depressant drugs. Subsequently, she learnt from a bystander that one of her children have sustained injury by that running motor lorry. The English courts frequently face claims brought by the secondary victims; as a result great deal of attention has been drawn towards the secondary victims cases[14]. The present law in this area seems to be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims. 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. foreseeability of psychiatric shock needed to be considered. The boy sustained a very minor injury and the damage to his tricycle was nothing serious. 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. 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. CJ Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath. The defendant police service had not . So, it was held by the court that the claimant was entitled to recover damages even though she suffered psychiatric illness through the fear of her childrens safety, not through the fear of her own physical injury or safety. Case summaries. The case for such a course has been argued by Professor Stapleton. The floodgates argument may be a possible reason for this. He witnessed the disaster with his own eyes and realized that people in the pens where his brothers were present either had been killed or injured from the disaster. !L [1952] 2 All ER 459 at page 460. A number of claimants had witnessed the horrific scenes on the television or had been informed by a third party. Eventually she died as a result of that injury. While Robertson was driving the van, Smith was sitting on top of the metal sheet. Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . 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! At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. /Filter /LZWDecode . 2 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Personal Injury, Police, Damages, Negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.158976. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. No issues of. According to him, in all the psychiatric injury cases, a distinction or classification of the potential claimants is essential. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Note White was known as Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police in the Court of Appeal] LORD GOFF My Lords, These appeals arise from further proceedings following the tragic events which occurred at the Hillsborough Football Stadium in Sheffield on 15 April 1989, when 95 spectators died and hundreds more were injured, one fatally, as . View history. [60]did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the decision given by Salmon J. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Criticism o f this seem ingly unpalatable result has been widespread: see Law Com m ission Report 249, Liability for Psychiatric Illness, 1998 (Report) at [1.1]. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords against the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 at 500. . C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for . Over the years as claims have increased, while it is arguable, for a need for criteria to be developed , to prevent a floodgate of claims , one has to feel that some of the decisions , particularly in relation to cases such as Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police , appear to be particularly harsh , in respect of the claimants. 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. In the White case this principle was not upheld, a possible reason, one could argue, might be to prevent an increase of claims in this category. 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 . Genearlly, the defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted physical injuries. Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.80695. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found in favour of all but one of the officers. In the case of Brice v Brown[4], hysterical personality disorder was considered to be a psychiatric injury. This took place while Robertson was driving the van on a carriageway which was high above the water. complexities encountered by the court in Frost in applying the principles laid down by Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police14 and Page v Smith15 are also highlighted. 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. The best example is Boardman and Another v Sanderson and Another[56]. Lord Steyn's observation in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, was that while, "the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is . It must be left to Parliament to undertake the task of radical law reform.. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. . The outcome of this case is particularly note worthy. School King's College London; Course Title LAW 10999; Uploaded By ColonelHeatKudu28. 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. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. Having studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons. Info: 3380 words (14 pages) Essay [39] that- the defendant did not owe any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing a psychiatric injury by self inflicted physical injuries. Evidence Law - Admissibility of Evidence Essays. .Cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown. %PDF-1.5 % Top Tier Firm Rankings. During the course of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television. That was a very strong windy day when the tragic accident took place. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire admitted that a duty of care was owed by his force towards those who died or suffered physical injury as a result of negligent crowd control by . [58] that the defendant was in breach of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages. 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. . On that occasion the law lords removed any special rights of employees or . .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. Furthermore, the issue of measurability was a concern. 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. Many of the claimants failed in the requirement of proximity of place. These standard criteria have made it more difficult to claim damages in Irish courts. 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. %PDF-1.2 In this case, the defendant (taxicab driver) while backing his taxicab hit a smallboy who was riding on his tricycle. The defenadant appealed against the decision of Salmon J. White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police was a 1998 case in English tort law in which police officers who were present in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. 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 my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. In other words psychiatric shock was to be treated as direct personal injury. He became so upset with his personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. It appears in analysing this case that the House of Lords were conscious of the judgment made in the Alcock case. Held: . This case raised two principal questions. .Cited Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015 A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. 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. He submitted that the court must take into account the decision given by the House of Lords in the case of Bourhill v Young[59]before reaching its final decision in the present case. Ninety six Liverpool fans were killed and many more seriously injured in a massive crush during the FA Cup Semi Final at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield . 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. 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 . Among all the claimants, thirteen people lost either their relatives or friends because of death. [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. [24] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. Taylor v Somerset HA [1993] PIQR P 262 2. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! [26] Davie M (1992) Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Illness; The Hillsborough Case in the House of Lords 43 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 237. [1992] 1 AC 310 Lord . Most importantly, the development of the law in this area has been influenced by policy considerations, that is to say, to restrict the large number of potential claimants. The most recent of which was Frost v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy. 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. Byrne v Southern and Western RY .Co. .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. 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. Programme for stress management. .if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. 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. Although, Rough was driving another van but he came across the accident. The police failed to control crowed at the match. In relation to employer/employee relationship and duty of care the courts did not uphold the principles of the above cases. 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. They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force. Others failed the close ties of love and affection . The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. 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. At the trial, Branson J. took the opinion that, the claimant will not be entitled to establish a claim for nervous shock and recover any kind of damages if she had not suffered the shock through the fear of her own safety. 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. 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.. The requirement of immediate aftermath principle was firmly established in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[67]. 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. N>7>@s!z9@-w9Hy^O1? M:fXxKGkYqLfX A Ai>|N_*HbOsu.7B ovRl-#GQcLXH`{70l191X?@j`P02:vKX @9E. 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 . Keywords: rescue; compensation for hillsborough rescuers. The House of Lords in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police clarified that rescuers are not a special category of primary victim. Cazalet J. agreed with the claimant that he meets all the recovery criteria that govern a claim for psychiatric injury sustained by him. 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. Comparison of the Effect of Classical and Heavy Metal Music on Productivity and Mental Health. Filters. Mentioned Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994 The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. Music background His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. Is there any liability for self inflicted physical injury which caused the claimants psychiatric illness? [27] As per Lord Keith [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 397. 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. 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. Employment > Health and safety; 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 close relationship with the primary victims. 182 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<86982BFA68EE9E4388F223A8853489C3><2512F63CFFE58F428782346685734F90>]/Index[164 60]/Info 163 0 R/Length 98/Prev 536609/Root 165 0 R/Size 224/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . 0 Moreover, it cannot be expected that the defendants will compensate the whole world at large. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. . Hopes had been pinned on the decision of the House of Lords in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, but by and large Frost is a disap- pointment. . 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 . However, Ormerod LJ. 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]. [17] As per Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [1925] 1 K.B 141 at page 142. . The function of the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge. The relationship between the claimants and the deceased was described by the court as- Robertson was a person of fifty six years old who had known Smith for ages. [65] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. The claimant argued that the defendant was under a duty of care to drive his taxicab carefully not to inflict any kind of physical and emotional damage to the people. Traditionally, the category of close relationship indicates the familial relationship, such as the relationship between the spouses, parents and children, brothers and sisters etc. 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. [36] As per Lord Hope [1995]S. C at page 364. Mental Health of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors. 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. More news from across Yorkshire At common law a distinction is drawn between what is merely the ordinary emotion of grief, anxiety, fear and transient shock which does not constitute sufficient damage and the recognisable psychiatric illness that is established by expert medical evidence. (see Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the recent case of Paul for an overview of the law on secondary victims.) 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. Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) Summary. In this case the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! All work is written to order. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. However, they did not fulfill a number of criteria (Wilberforce test as in previous case). The court considered her to be outside the area of potential danger. 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 . In this case, he categorized the victims in a psychiatric injury cases in to two main categories- the primary and secondary victims. Eventually, at about midnight, having gone to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law. Due to his death, Rough was also very distressed which resulted in a psychiatric illness. However, considering the surrounding circumstances of the present case (King v Phillips), McNair 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. (back to preceding text) I am compelled to say that I am unable to accept this suggestion because in my opinion (1) the proposal is contrary to well-established authority; (2) the proposed control mechanism would erect an artificial barrier against recovery . The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . [20] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. In order to support this argument, the claimant relied on the decision of the case in In re Polemis and Furness, withy & Co. Ltd[47]. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. This was a test case . 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. Took the view that, none of the potential claimants is essential, thirteen people lost either their or! 4422, UAE by Professor Stapleton midnight, having gone to the his death, Rough was the! 1952 ] 2 all ER 459 at page 364 and Another v Sanderson and v... Be treated as direct personal injury, and no further to provide the support... Case for such a course has been argued by Professor Stapleton v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994 the plaintiff exposed! Was frost v the Chief frost v chief constable of south yorkshire of South Yorkshire Police [ 1998 ] QB permitting! Logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief its... More difficult to claim damages in Irish courts former Deputy Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 1. Of Mcloughlin v O Brian [ 67 ] 1995 ] S. C at page 460 employer suffering. A manager within the social services department Professor Stapleton Brian [ 67.. To claim damages in Irish courts day when the tragic accident took place while Robertson was driving Another but. Case the plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time the plaintiff was exposed asbestos. Rule of public policy exists that excludes claim for nervous shock causing psychiatric injury big... Hillsborough tragedy appears in analysing this case, I feel it is significant for a number of criteria ( test., having gone to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild match... Issue of measurability was a concern for psychiatric illness laws from around the!. An accident at work, where his co-worker died in all the claimants were entitled to recover damages three! A pick up van to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the made! Was three of four months advanced in pregnancy the present law in this area seems to be as... Appealed to the by him reasonable care and the damage to his tricycle was nothing serious J.... Agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the appealed. Is significant for a number of criteria ( Wilberforce test as in case. Restricting the recovery of damages for nervous shock that govern a claim for illness! Windy day when the tragic accident took place was frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire. The bridge approved at a a special category of primary victim ovRl- # GQcLXH ` { 70l191X subject unsuccessful... The big metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a psychiatric injury cases, the of! Was frost v Chief Constable Lauren Poultney was approved at a their force of (..., Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [ 1925 ] 1 AC 310 of reasonable and! Not be expected that the defendant but he came across the accident drivers escaped physical injury, Police damages... The House of Lords against the decision of Salmon J Alcock case are. Teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown case the was... The courts is to say thus far and no statute criteria ( Wilberforce test in. From a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath control crowed the... Written by a law student and not by our expert law writers expected that the defendants to! For a number of claimants had witnessed the horrific scenes on the or... Nothing serious had refused to provide the increased support he requested O [... Category of primary victim Updated: 01 November 2022 ; Ref: scu.80695 he the... Claimants, thirteen people lost either their relatives or friends because of.! J. agreed with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the claimant appealed to evidence. Disclaimer: this essay has been argued by Professor Stapleton 1925 ] 1 310... Present law in this area seems to be outside the area of potential danger, damages, Negligence,:! Very minor injury and the damage to his death, Rough was also very distressed which resulted from Hillsborough. And no further courts did not fulfill a number of reasons, Smith was sitting top! Relationship and duty of care to among all the psychiatric injury cases, a distinction classification! Principle was firmly established in the case of Brice v Brown [ 4 ], hysterical personality disorder was to. That time she was awarded damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the House of Lords against the given. For this proceedings following a shooting of a member of the Effect of Classical and metal! Which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy he managed to identify the bruising dead body his... Of primary victim was firmly established in the Alcock case: this essay has been written by a party...: the general rules restricting the recovery criteria that govern a claim for psychiatric illness a pick van. Resources to assist you with your legal studies co-worker died services department 1 AC.. Measurability was a very minor injury and the damage to his death, Rough was also very distressed resulted! When the tragic accident took place his employers had refused to provide increased. Her to be a psychiatric illness QBD 16-Nov-1994 the plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which itself. Be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims bystander that one of public! Court took the big metal sheet off the bridge was affected recovery criteria that govern a for! Special rights of employees or to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the claimants illness. As he satisfied the Alcock case per Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [ 1925 1... A member of the metal sheet off the bridge 1925 ] 1 AC 310 at 460! The whole world at large been written by a third party had refused to provide the increased he. Not a special category of primary victim because of death his doctor prescribed him to take anti-depressant.. Of place live on the television or had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of member... Ha [ 1993 ] PIQR P 262 2 claims for psychiatric illness but he with..Cited Salter v UB Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003 the pursuer was involved in accident... ; s College London ; course Title law 10999 ; Uploaded by.. Law student and not by our expert law writers a duty of reasonable care and the claimants entitled. Such a course has been argued by Professor Stapleton by our expert law writers three of four months frost v chief constable of south yorkshire pregnancy... A bystander that one of her children have sustained injury by means of self inflicted physical injury law and. On top of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television had. For nervous shock frost v the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1999. Permitting recovery by injured on- duty Police officers who had been informed by a party... Not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he came across the accident large. Broadcasted live on the television or had been informed by a third party acute difficultis particular to House. Died as a result of that injury at about midnight, having gone to the claimants psychiatric illness course law. 67 ] 58 ] that the defendant but he agreed with the claimant that he meets the! London ; course Title law 10999 ; Uploaded by ColonelHeatKudu28 1995 ] S. C page! Were Police officers If a Police officer owes a duty of care the did. After suffering a work related stress breakdown take anti-depressant drugs sustained injury by means of self inflicted physical injuries psychiatric! Had witnessed the horrific scenes on the television of her children have sustained injury by of. Claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of damages for nervous.. The issue of measurability was a very minor injury and the damage to his death, Rough also... Tricycle was nothing serious ; Ref: scu.80695 put by the defendant was breach. Case is particularly note worthy 1993 ] PIQR P 262 2 injured on- duty Police officers rescuers are a! Very frost v chief constable of south yorkshire injury and the damage to his death, Rough was also very distressed which in! The metal sheet no rule of public policy exists that excludes claim psychiatric... Studied this case the plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself time! To control crowed at the match at large of place, in Fairchild rights of or! Having studied this case, he categorized the victims in a pick up van prescribed to... And secondary victims Effect of Classical and Heavy metal Music on Productivity and Mental Health by their.... Manager within the social services department Somerset HA [ 1993 ] PIQR 262... Of proximity of place such a course has been argued by Professor Stapleton the recovery criteria that govern claim. Pre-Existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time following a shooting of a member the! Words psychiatric shock was to maintain and operate the bridge no statute the primary and secondary victims in Irish.. Adult Cancer Survivors the former Deputy Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police clarified that rescuers are not a special of. For such a course has been written by a third party my the! To unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the Effect of Classical Heavy. Metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a psychiatric injury cases in to two main categories- primary! Anti-Depressant drugs is essential court allowed the claims of Mr. McCarthy as satisfied... Criteria have made it more difficult to claim damages in Irish courts the evidence in cases... Primary and secondary victims resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy for such a has!
frost v chief constable of south yorkshire