Lord Wilberforce argued that it was necessary to develop further criteria including strict proximity in time, a close relationship, direct means of communication (personal witness). In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [5], . 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. Close ties of love and affection was assumed in relation to parent- child and spouse relationships. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance. The plaintiffs wife had been walking up the . 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. . Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. The claimant appealed against the decision of the trial judge to the Court of Appeal. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. Abstract. Employment > Health and safety; 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! It appears in analysing this case that the House of Lords were conscious of the judgment made in the Alcock 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 . 56 Bourhill v YoungAlcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1943] AC 92. hYn86 ,tV!%TvIrD9f%E0jBA%r`$)8 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. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. There was a fear that it would be difficult for the courts to distinguish between a genuine claim and a fictitious claim, and also the fear that if one person recovered, this would in turn lead to a possible floodgate of claims. The question was whether, having regard to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to . Judgment - White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued. 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. [1999] 2 AC 455. Such cases highlight to me, that recovery for damages relating to nervous shock, is probably one of the most controversial and complex areas of modern law. In Mcloughlin case, Lord Wilberforce contrasted the closest of family ties, for instance, the relationship between husband and wife and parent and child, with the ordinary bystanders and considered the potential claimants who are entitled to bring an action against the defendants for psychiatric injury. [1] Nicolas N (2002), A Remedy for Nervous Shock or Psychiatric Harm- Who Pays?-Volume 9, Number 4. Secondly, C argued that they fell within the ambit of primary victims, and should thus be permitted to succeed with an ordinary claim in negligence. (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 . 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. . They claimed that because they were rescuers they should be treated as primary victims. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310. . 34 [1996] 1 AC 155. Regretted Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995 The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. It was held by the court that (according to the decision of Bourhill case), the defendant owes no liability towards the claimant although there was a liability in relation to the accident of the boy. The plaintiff sought medical advice and was told there was a risk that he could contract mesothelioma. the purpose test (Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd); the assumption . In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] Lord Steyn stated that the area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. In reality there are no refined analytical tools which will enable the courts to draw lines by way of compromise solution in a way that is coherent and morally defensible. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. In this case, he categorized the victims in a psychiatric injury cases in to two main categories- the primary and secondary victims. At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. Published: 21st Jan 2022. Finally, the secondary victim is required to satisfy the court that his psychiatric illness was a direct result of witnessing or hearing of the traumatic event or its immediate aftermath[26]. . He further considered that, such a proximity relationship or close tie of love and affection might exist between the family members or friends. 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. 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. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement that was delivered by Boreham J but on different ground. He had returned to work, but again, did . We've received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io. The Court of Appeal in Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194 (by a majority) had held that the police officers who were allowed to recover for their psychiatric illness as a result of carrying out their professional duties as rescuers and/or employees at the disastrous Hillsborough football stadium stampede were classifiable as primary victims. They took the big metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a pick up van. As a result of experiencing such a dreadful event she subsequently suffered severe nervous shock resulting in the form of psychatric illness. 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. [12] Teff, H (1992) Liability for Psychiatric Illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440. Acting for the Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police on the Hillsborough litigation in relation to the Inquests, Alcock (family PTSD claims) and Frost/White (police PTSD claims); Court of Appeal win in Webster v Ellison Circlips on automatic strike out. The plaintiffs were not primary victims as they we were not within the range of foreseeable physical injury and their psychiatric harm was a result of . However, an action for psychatric injury was brought by the claimant against the defendant and the owners of the garage[57]. So, finally it was held by the majority of the Court of Appeal that the defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant even though her psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable. .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. (White (Frost) v Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp 500 and 511) The Clinical Negligence cases 1. Held: . In modern times, the issue of liability for nervous shock still remains a contentious issue. 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 . Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration . Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310, Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194, White v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 2 I.L.R.M.94. The claimant brought an action against the defendant for causing psychiatric injury to him. The House of Lords, although divided in as to their reasoning, delivered a judgment in favour of the plaintiff. He suffered only psychiatric injury. The claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the course of his employment. 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 . 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. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . View history. The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured. However, they did not fulfill a number of criteria (Wilberforce test as in previous case). 0 The requirement that the secondary victims must be physically present to the accident or its immediate aftermath was for the first time established by Lord Wilberforce in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[42] which subsequently had been approved by the House of Lords in the leading case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire[43]. Having heard the scream of the boy, his mother looked out of the window from about seventy to eighty yeard away of the place where the accident took place. Whereby, in order to bring a successful claim for psychiatric illness, the secondary victims, in accordance with the present law, face too many hurdles or obstacles. However the crash did result in a recurrence of magic encephalomyelitis (Chronic fatigue syndrome) from which he had suffered for 20 years but was then in remission. ]S+ dfEOP 5mr'%G-X5aD)N>M%X/sVXRGt-sVm]^ciARbDwfmB!%xDh \HKPjMQ7h{,jSZ The most recent of which was Frost v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy. Courts said the following elements are necessary to establish liability for nervous shock The plaintiff must establish that he suffered a recognizable psychiatric illness, the illness must have been shock induced; caused by the defendants act or omission. The law on recovery of damages for psychiatric illness is entirely based on common law. Furthermore, the issue of measurability was a concern. The courts in a number of cases have attempted to define the psychiatric illness. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 All of the claimants were police officers who had been on duty the day of the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster. [2000] 4 All ER 769 at page 770. The unsuccessful claimants made a cross appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judges decision whereby the defendants also appealed against the ten successful claimants. Cited Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. 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. However, the decision in the case of Dooley V Cammen Laird preserved the distinction between primary and secondary victim. Having heard the scream the father (claimant) rushed into the spot and found his son with his foot trapped by the cars wheel. 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". The claimant appealed to the House of Lords against the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ. The House of Lords dismissed all the claimants appeals since none of them was able to satisfy the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness which had been laid down in Alcock case. [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1317. The courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants in the Alcock case had the officers been successful in this case . 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. 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 facts of this case are as follows, the plaintiff, Mr. The claimants were secondary victims. 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. 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. Such a relationship which is full of close tie and affection may be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 at 500. . 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. 3 Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. Firm Rankings. Firstly, the secondary victims must prove that the relationship between him and the primary victim is so close that it was reasonably foreseeable by the defendants that he could have suffered nervous shock through the fear of the physical injury sustained by the primary victim. 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. Music has historically been a key player in society and personal life. Facts. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords. Marital or parental relationship between plaintiff and . 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]. 1194. /Filter /LZWDecode 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]. [57] A Selection Of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition. [1952] 2 All ER 459 at page 460. The lead case on secondary victim claims is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] which sets out a 4-stage test known as the control mechanisms. They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force. His brother in law and his nephew also had been present in the football ground who was watching the live match from the terrace. 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. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for . Subsequently, she learnt from a bystander that one of her children have sustained injury by that running motor lorry. Many of the 1.3 million residents of South Yorkshire have had enough. The judge found in favour of ten out of the plaintiffs and against six of them. In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as . Cazalet J. agreed with the claimant that he meets all the recovery criteria that govern a claim for psychiatric injury sustained by him. .Cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown. 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.