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. Donaghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 532. 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. He went to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 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. [45] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. [71] As per Cumming Bruce LJ. However, the decision in the case of Dooley V Cammen Laird preserved the distinction between primary and secondary victim. 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. View history. . 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. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . 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. %PDF-1.5 % [71] The court took the view that, there is no doubt that the psychiatric illness suffered by the claimant was reasonably foreseeable but the existing law on the recovery of damages for psychiatric injury only entitles those claimants to recover damages who had been close or near the accident that caused psychiatric injury as a result of the negligence of the defendants. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. Top Tier Firm Rankings. . This was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned. Programme for stress management. 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. According to him, the primary victims are the category of victims who mediately or immediately was involved into the accident and the secondary victims are those who passively and unwillingly witnessed the event that involved the injury of others and subsequently sustained psychiatric illness[12]. [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. Eventually, his doctor prescribed him to take anti-depressant drugs. 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 accident took place when the victims car collided with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [5], . 0 [66] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. The claimant must show that his / her injury was reasonably foreseeable, although Lord Wilberforce did state that foreseeability does not of itself automatically lead to a duty of care. Initially Lord Bridges viewpoint held but Lord Wilberforce argument gathered credence,as evident in the following case. According to him, in all the psychiatric injury cases, a distinction or classification of the potential claimants is essential. 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 . [27] As per Lord Keith [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 397. 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. He was told however that the risk was very remote. 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. 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. %PDF-1.2 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. His widow claimed in nervous shock, saying that it had eventually led to his own death. She was admitted to the hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed. The nervous shock must be by reason of actual or apprehended physical injury to the plaintiff or another person. Cited Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. 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]. 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 . Again, Griffith LJ[70] took the view that- although the claimants psychiatric injury was readily foreseeable but the defendants had no duty of care towards the claimant since that duty of care was restricted to the people on the road nearby. 2 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. But, according to the facts of the present case, the defendant had the knowledge that the claimant was not far away from the place of the accident, so therefore it was reasonably forseeable by the defendant that the father would be shocked after witnessing the accident in which his little son was involved. The boy screamed loud enough and tried to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the other foot. [1996] AC 923 , HL(E) and Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Refuge intervening) [2015] AC 1732 , SC(E) considered. Although he did not suffer physical injury, the crash he claimed resulted in chronic fatigue syndrome. No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for . He brought an action for negligently inflicted psychiatric illness against the defendants. 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. Primary victims are victims who are imperilled or reasonably believe themselves to be imperilled by the defendants negligence.Lord Steyn said: the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify. The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. Anxiety v stress. 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. The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. .Cited Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. So, therefore, a secondary victim is someone who suffers from psychiatric illness through the fear of other persons safety or injury. . 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. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. This time the ground for appeal was whether the defendants could have reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness suffered by the claimants or secondary victims. Two of the claimants found their relatives or friend severely injured whereby one of them had his relative who escaped unhurt. II. After that she found her husband injured and covered with mud and oil. 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. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. [24] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. 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! Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. 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. After the disaster took place, the match was abandoned and he started looking for his brothers but couldnt find them out. His Lordship further continued that, the present case is distinguishable from the case of King v Phillips[61]. 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. Traditionally, the category of close relationship indicates the familial relationship, such as the relationship between the spouses, parents and children, brothers and sisters etc. 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. The caimant was summoned by the hospital authority in order to see her injured family members. Kirsty Horsey, Erika Rackley, Tort Law, 6th edn, (OUP, 2019) 210. The law on recovery of damages for psychiatric illness is entirely based on common law. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying We have come back to the plain . 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. So according to Keiths directions the defenadant was backing his car out and paying attention to him. 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. It appears to have played an unjustifiably large part in the . This . Again, in the case of Fenn v City of Peterborough[64], the claimant arived home couple of minutes after a gas explosion in which he lost his three children. In the present case, despite of being present at the stadium during the football match the claimants whose action had been rejected by the House of Lords are as follows[25]: Brian Harrison was one of the appellants. 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. Many of the 1.3 million residents of South Yorkshire have had enough. 669. Cited - Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991. He successfully adduced evidence that there was a very close and intimate relationship between him and his half brothers[34]. The preliminary issue before the court was whether the existing law allows the claimants to bring an action for recovery of damages against the defendants or not. << The mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy. 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. 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. We're here to answer any questions you have about our services. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiffs claims as employees. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Hamrook v Stokes Bros (1925) 1 K.B. .Cited Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA 18-Mar-2013 The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendants admitted negligence. Interestingly, in this instance, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident. A question arose before the court; whether the mother had suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her eyes or the shock was caused as a result of what she was told by the bystander. It was admitted by the defendants that the accident took place due to their negligence. 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. Although the plaintiff did not suffer physical injury, the traumatic incident (a driver lost control of his team of horses and drove them into the building where the plaintiff was working behind her husbands bar) led to nervous shock and the premature birth of her child. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal. Afterwards she went down to the corridor and came across one of her children crying who had fer face cut and discoloured with mud and soil. Consequently, actions brought by the potential claimants or the victims of psychiatric illness have often been unsuccessful for a number of reasons despite of having been suffered genuine recognized psychiatric injury[1]. [7] Nervous Shock-when is it compensable? .Cited Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020 Nervous shock liability to third parties The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! 2819 Words. 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. Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . Music background [60]did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the decision given by Salmon J. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Having heard this, the claimant ran approximately hundred yards from her place in order to see her son who was eventually died. This was a case which involved a huge disaster in the Hillsborough football stadium[23]. However, liability could not be avoided if the accident took place very close to him and was so horrific. the purpose test (Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd); the assumption . . In the case of bystanders, it is not generally foreseeable by the defendants that such a person would suffer from psychiatric injury. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . The question was whether, having regard to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to . 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. 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]. However, the defendants appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal and on the other hand it did not allow the unsuccessful claimants appeal. 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]. The defendant admitted that he had been negligent, but said he was not liable for the psychiatric damage as it was unforeseeable and therefore not recoverable as a head of damage .The Page v Smith case is significant in that it enhanced the distinction between primary and secondary victims. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. In that case it was not reasonably freseeable by the defendant that the claimant was going to suffer from psychiatric illness after witnessing the accident. Interestingly, in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police the plaintiffs ( police officers ) relied on cases such as Dooley v Cammell Laird [1951] 1 Lloyds Rep 271, Galt v British Railways Board [1983] 113 NLJ 870, Wiggs v British Railways Board. 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. More news from across Yorkshire The House of Lords ' Cases In any action for damages in the tort of negligence, the plaintiff has to 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. l'LCocI2Vp.0c The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary . 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. Having heard the boys scream the claimant rushed there and saw the accident which caused psychiatric injury to him. .Cited French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. 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. In-house law team, White and Others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, NEGLIGENCE PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE LIABILITY TO RESCUERS DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. The House of Lord were thus called upon to revisit the distinction between primary and secondary victims set out in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire ([1992] 1 AC 310). 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 . Baker v Bolton [1808] EWHC KB J92. However, an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric injury against the defendant. However, Ormerod LJ. In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. [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. 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 appears in analysing this case that the House of Lords were conscious of the judgment made in the Alcock case. 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. Moreover, a rescuer in relation to whom physical injury was not reasonably foreseeable could not recover damages for psychiatric injury sustained by witnessing, or participating in the aftermath of, an accident which had caused death or injury to others; such rescuers were to be categorised as secondary victims, and so would have to meet the conditions specified by Lord Oliver in Alcock. However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. 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. 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 best example is Boardman and Another v Sanderson and Another[56]. Evidence Law - Admissibility of Evidence Essays. The Irish courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock. In my opinion, this case illustrates a change of approach in relation to nervous shock recovery. [1992] 1 AC 310 Lord . The facts of this case are, on the 19th October 1973, a friend came to the claimants house to tell her of a serious accident involving her husband and three children, two hours after it had occurred. ~M}o"bR[ A\euA. All of them were connected in various ways . He had known Smith just as a colleague for few years. That is to say, the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with the primary victims. Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. They said that the defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. We've received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io.