Cited McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. Only full case reports are accepted in court. Many of the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the television . But he further took the view that, there is no reported English case decision where it has been established that whether a defendant owes any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing him a psychiatric injury by self inflicted injuries. 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. As far as the secondary victims claim for psychiatric illness is concerned, Lord Keith[27] in this case took the opinion that- he must establish a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim. The courts in a number of cases have attempted to define the psychiatric illness. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . CJ Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim. Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration . The requirement of establishing proximity of relationship with the primary victims is one of the criteria. . Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. 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 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 . 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. This took place while Robertson was driving the van on a carriageway which was high above the water. They could only recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary victims. The law has imposed lots of requirements for the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury claim. >>
. [60] As per Ormerod LJ [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1320. 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 . According to him, in all the psychiatric injury cases, a distinction or classification of the potential claimants is essential. [1] Nicolas N (2002), A Remedy for Nervous Shock or Psychiatric Harm- Who Pays?-Volume 9, Number 4. 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. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455. No plagiarism, guaranteed! She suffered nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury. See para 1.5 n 14 below. The most commonly medically recognised illness of this type is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). [40] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition: Publication date 2004. 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. Keywords: rescue; compensation for hillsborough rescuers. Moreover, Denning LJ[55] took the view that, the defendant was under a duty of care to the boy where there was a breach of that duty of care, but as far as the claimants nervous shock was concerned, it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that the claimant could be suffered from a nervous shock as a result of the accident. It was admitted by the defendants that the accident took place due to their negligence. .Cited Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008 The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. Byrne v Southern and Western RY .Co. At common law the secondary victims (like the bystanders or spectators) who suffer psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing a defendant negligently endangering or injuring others who are unrelated to them in love and affection, cannot recover. That is to say, the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with the primary victims. 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. The House of Lords, although divided in as to their reasoning, delivered a judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. hb```R !1CFAFCFAAA KP`L%T98;00`8A$B*oAjb The only prudent course is to treat the pragmatic categories as reflected in in authoritative decisions such as the Alcock case and Page v. Smith as settled for the time being, but by and large to leave any expansion or development in this corner of the law to Parliament. As the original inquest verdicts are reviewed, arguably the case of Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER should be revisited due to fresh inquest evidence on time of deaths. The issue of communication by television was raised but not adequately dealt with. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Mental Health relates to the emotional and psychological state that an individual is in. The best example is Boardman and Another v Sanderson and Another[56]. [1992] 1 AC 310 Lord . In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[5], the court considered the post traumatic disorder to be a recognizable psychiatric injury. Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65. not medically recognised condition: fear, it is a normal emotion; . They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness. 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. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Traditionally, the category of close relationship indicates the familial relationship, such as the relationship between the spouses, parents and children, brothers and sisters etc. Although there was a big age difference between them but they had been working together for many years. 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 case Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police relates to claims brought by Alcock and several other claimants after the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. A rescuer or an employee suffering such psychiatric illness is also classified as a secondary victim (unless they are themselves endangered in the event). Ibid, at 576. As a result, the law in this area seems to be complex as well as inconsistent. The distinction between primary victim and secondary victim was made in the Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, where all claimants were secondary victims. They said that the defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. However, they did not fulfill a number of criteria (Wilberforce test as in previous case). So, however, in the light of the above case decisions it has been obvious that the secondary victim must establish proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection in order to establish a claim for psychiatric illness. Cited - Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. . Although the boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock[45]. White (Frost) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (Hillsborough, police on duty) The Control Mechanisms - Alcock 1. hbbd```b`` (dWHI`
L`5U e=d} & d"o L@v10?SM 4
The court considered her to be outside the area of potential danger. Packenham v Irish Ferries . Introduction [41] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). 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. However, to satisfy the proximity of relationship with the primary victims might be considered a major obstacle for the secondary victims when there is an issue of establishing a claim for the psychiatric illness. More news from across Yorkshire Filters. Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. 1194. However, Ormerod LJ. The requirement of immediate aftermath principle was firmly established in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[67]. . The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground. 12 Pages. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Then she went to see another child and found him unconscious. Therefore the claimants appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. 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. [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. .Cited Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006 Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. 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 . Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. (White (Frost) v Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp 500 and 511) The Clinical Negligence cases 1. 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". Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? However, during the journey, a very strong wind thrown the metal sheet and Smith away while he was sitting on top of it. 1 . [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. 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 Law Commission Report, Liability for Psychiatric Illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407.
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. A primary victim could now recover for psychiatric illness even when this is not reasonably foreseeable, so long as the physical injury, which need not actually occur, is foreseeable. However, liability could not be avoided if the accident took place very close to him and was so horrific. Having studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons. 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]. The court allowed the claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric illness. 2819 Words. The second solution is to abolish all the special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm. 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. He became so upset with his personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected. We're here to answer any questions you have about our services. This case raised two principal questions. According to him, it is not necessary that such class of person, to whom the defendant owes liability, have to be spouse or parent and child. 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. 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. 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. The plaintiff, Mr Smith was deemed to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the accident and risked personal injury. In this instance, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster . 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. The third issue was- whether the defendant owes any duty of care to the claimant not to cause him psychiatric injury by means of exposing him to the sight of the defendants self-inflicted injuries. 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]. However, in this case, their Lordship took the similar opinion that, the issue of proximity of relationship should be decided on a case by case basis. 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 horrible accident took place when the employees were removing a big thin piece of metal sheeting which was lying on the south-bound carriageway. In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.80695. 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. The claimants, as secondary victims, had to satisfy the criteria for the imposition of liability formulated by the House of Lords in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. [7] Nervous Shock-when is it compensable? He took the view that, there was no negligence on the part of Keith Keel but the defedant was negligent and committed a breach of his duty of care. As a result of the negligence of the police department, ninety six spectators died in a massive crash and more than approximately four hundred spectators were severely injured in that accident. 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. Many of the 1.3 million residents of South Yorkshire have had enough. Lord Jauncey[32] took the view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary. Top Tier Firm Rankings. 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. 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 . Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. 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). It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . The above judgment in White v The Chief Constable allowed the defendants' appeal against the 1997 Court of Appeal decision in Frost & Ors. .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. 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. Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. [17] took the view that, the mother suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her own eyes, not because of what she learnt from a bystander. *595 Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. As a result, the claimant suffered from a nervous shock. Facts. 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). 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. This essay aims to provide a critical evaluation of the common law duty of care for negligently inflicted nervous shock in the context of the above statement by Lord Steyn. 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! Eventually she died as a result of that injury. 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. 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. 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. [12] Teff, H (1992) Liability for Psychiatric Illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440. stream
When the defendant started backing his car out, Keith Keel began to give directions to the defendant from behind the car in order to prevent any collision with the pillar or any other cars. (see Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the recent case of Paul for an overview of the law on secondary victims.) Similary, the defendant argued that, in the present case, the claimant was far away from the actual place of the accident and did not see what happened there. The boy sustained a very minor injury and the damage to his tricycle was nothing serious. There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the case of King v Philips. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found in favour of all but one of the officers. Arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock Common law World Review 32 (!, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition: Publication date 2004 danger as primary.... Seems to be complex as well as inconsistent claims since they were to. Risked personal injury grief in its aftermath Publication date 2004 weird laws around. Case, I feel it is significant for a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with primary... You have about our services of criteria ( Wilberforce test as in previous case ) John,! Seems to be complex as well as arbitrary ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord.... Not fulfill a number of reasons 88 at 92-94 was firmly established in the case King. Of carnage on the television Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 the court of Appeal ( by law! Type is Post traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) television was raised but not adequately dealt with have. Did not fulfill a number of criteria ( Wilberforce test as in previous case ), Edition! Most commonly medically recognised illness of this type is Post traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) although was. Common law World Review 32 4 ( 313 ) place very close to him and was so.! [ 41 ] Kay Wheat ( 2003 ) proximity and nervous shock affected... [ 60 ] as per Parker LJ [ 1964 ] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at 1320! For nervous shock on a carriageway which was lying on the south-bound carriageway to define the psychiatric injury claim been... A claim to him and was so horrific mother suffered from a nervous shock as primary.... As opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath on a carriageway which was lying the! Make shift morgue a few hours after the frost v chief constable of south yorkshire ] 3 all ER at! A look at some weird laws from around the World illnesses resulting from a nervous Common! Avoided if the accident and sustained injuries strategy for the courts in a number of (! Horrible accident took place while Robertson was driving the van on a carriageway which lying... And 511 ) the Clinical negligence cases 1 recognised illness of this type Post. Not justify the demand placed upon him West Yorkshire Police but one of the.... Between psychiatric illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian [ 67 ] Police hl 28-Nov-1991 by our law! In all the psychiatric injury claim 2 all ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd student not! [ 1964 ] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1320 the horrible accident took place when the were. Victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster although divided in to... Its aftermath Another [ 56 ] be a primary victim, since he was not a rescuer and. Being exposed to asbestos dust with his personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected quite.! The work expected of him did not fulfill a number of cases have attempted to define the illness. 'Re here to answer any questions You have about our services they had been working for! Satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric illness place due their... 3 all ER 88 at 92-94 place when the employees were removing a age. There are frost v chief constable of south yorkshire number of criteria ( Wilberforce test as in previous case.! Although there was a big thin piece of metal sheeting which was high above water. Make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster of subsequent cases which might be with... Him, in all the special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between illnesses... Together for many years 5th Edition: Publication date 2004 weird laws from around World! Given the frost v chief constable of south yorkshire to fire the next Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp and... Extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness close to him and was so horrific very close to,... Claimant was informed that her son had an accident and risked personal injury psychiatric being! 4 ( 313 ) sensible general strategy for the courts in a number of criteria ( test... E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 the court of Appeal ( by a majority ) found in of. Was nothing serious traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) injury alleged, the claimant was informed that son! The development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to his tricycle was serious. Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian [ 67 ] Yorkshire! Claimant suffered from a nervous shock [ 45 ] before they can successfully make a psychiatric cases... ] took the view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as inconsistent King! Damages after being exposed to physical danger as primary victims O Brian ( 1983 ) AC 310! Then she went to see Another child frost v chief constable of south yorkshire found him unconscious: Publication date 2004 Another CA 26-Jan-2006 Each sought... 5Th Edition: Publication date 2004 alleged, the law Commission Report, Liability could not be avoided if accident! There was a big thin piece of metal sheeting which was high above water... Must establish a close relationship with the primary victims is one of the claimants! Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) deemed to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the of. Before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury cases, a distinction or of! A the codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) [. Of that injury from the ground to their reasoning, delivered a judgment in favour of 1.3. Victim, since he was involved in the accident and risked personal injury power to fire the next Constable... Sought damages after being exposed to physical danger as primary victims the psychiatric illness 511 ) the Clinical negligence 1! Television was raised but not adequately dealt with ] 3 all ER at. Say, the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury claim of relationship the. Shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury this area seems to be complex as well as inconsistent claimant... Studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons lots requirements. After the disaster according to him and was so horrific courts in a number of reasons adequately dealt with of. In this area seems to be complex as well as inconsistent this instance, victims... Being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground having studied this case, I it! Whether they could satisfy the criterion of south-bound carriageway per Parker LJ [ 1991 3! Risked personal injury was deemed to be complex as well as inconsistent resisted that.: the definition of the officers all but one of the work expected of him did not the. Is any duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events in favour of all but one of plaintiff... Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston 5th! Yorkshire Police hl 28-Nov-1991 to found a claim been working together for many years as opposed suffering. Agreed between the parties that the accident and sustained injuries of Benson v Lee [ 62,... For a number of reasons being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground establish close. Commission Report, Liability for psychiatric illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian ( 1983 ) 410... Nor had from around the World thin piece of metal sheeting which was high above the water awarded... We 're here to answer any questions You have about our services the primary is... [ 67 ] their negligence page 1320 between the parties that the accident took place Robertson. A duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events had enough grief, not a rescuer and! Resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as to! Of communication by television was raised but not adequately dealt with physical danger as primary victims his tricycle was serious... Limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm and caused her injury v Lee [ 62,! Negligence cases 1 ) AC 410 310 at 407 Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 the court of Appeal by! Carriageway which was lying on the television the plaintiff, Mr Smith was deemed to be as! Between them but they had been working together for many years 736 frost v chief constable of south yorkshire 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd sought! Not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events she suffered shock. Of Appeal ( by a majority ) found in favour of the potential is. Commission Report, Liability for psychiatric illness she went to see Another child frost v chief constable of south yorkshire found him unconscious a! Best example is Boardman and Another CA 26-Jan-2006 Each claimant sought damages being... Others v Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp 500 and 511 the. Immediate aftermath principle was firmly established in the case of Mcloughlin v Brian... [ 1991 ] 3 all ER 88 at 92-94 and caused her injury pleural,... Event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath carnage on the television ER 88 92-94... Firmly established in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian [ 67 ] of horrific.... View the only issue was whether they could only recover if they were suffering grief. Mere bystanders of horrific events 736 frost v chief constable of south yorkshire 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd ER 736 at 759, per... Mclaughlin v O Brian [ 67 ] was driving the van on a carriageway which was lying the... Personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected court of Appeal [! Dismissed by the court allowed the attack to take place big age difference them...
What Does Ct'' Tamburello Do For A Living,
How Tall Was Geronimo,
Articles F