endstream endobj startxref The Court of Appeal's judgment has been discussed at some length by the present authors in an earlier article, "Nervous Shock, Rescuers and Employees - Primary or Secondary Victims?" [1998] SLJS 121. 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. Such a duty of care must be aplied to everyone in the vicinity particularly to a mother who had the fear for psysical safety to her children. To satisfy physical proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath might be considered as another major obstacle for the secondary victims where there is an issue of establishing a claim for the psychiatric illness. The courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants in the Alcock case had the officers been successful in this case . [65] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. There is indeed a sense of remoteness in this case. 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. [51] As per Singleton LJ. According to the facts of this case, the claimants (Robertson and Rough) and the primary victim (George Smith) used to work together with the defendants (Forth Road Bridge Board). 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. Introduction Criticised Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995 The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. Abstract. The defendant relied on the decision of the case in Bourhill v Young[48] with a view to support his arguement and stated that the psychiatric injury to the mother was not reasonably foreseeable as she was not within the range of reasonable anticipation. 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. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this dissertation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com. [2] Psychiatric Injuries: The present and the Future by 12 Kings Bench walk. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. 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. . [60]did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the decision given by Salmon J. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . Also the plaintiff had to establish that the nervous shock caused by the accident, resulted from her fear for her own safety. Recovery, on the other hand, for a secondary victim is differentiated and is much more restricted. He brought an action for negligently inflicted psychiatric illness against the defendants. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Only full case reports are accepted in court. The carriageway was too high that any person fell from that distance would unlikely to survive. foreseeability of psychiatric shock needed to be considered. 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. His Lordship further continued that, the present case is distinguishable from the case of King v Phillips[61]. where the rescuer may not have been in physical danger but was awarded damages due to his putting himself in the 'zone of danger', after the event. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. However in relation to claims brought by siblings this close relationship had to be proven by evidence. 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. Generally, nervous shock is a term which has been used by lawyers. 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. Finally, after a careful consideration of all the issues, it was held by Cazalet J. The Law Commission Report, Liability for Psychiatric Illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407. 0 We do not provide advice. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) 1 AC 310 the ordinary rules of negligence were applied to allegedly negligent crowd control by the police. Held: Where an accident is of a particular . 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. [34] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. The boy screamed loud enough and tried to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the other foot. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [5], . X (Adopted Child: Access To Court File): FC 9 Sep 2014, Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others, Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1), Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd, Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm), Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc, Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another, Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar, Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd, Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis, 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. 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. Close ties of love and affection was assumed in relation to parent- child and spouse relationships. .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. [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1317. The case was known as Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others [1997] 1 All ER 540 in the lower courts. 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. Lord Dyson MR felt that damages for psychiatric illness could not be recovered in respect of consequences witnessed months, 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]. The best example is Boardman and Another v Sanderson and Another[56]. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk. [1992] 1 AC 310 Lord . [55] As per Denning LJ [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 625. [71] As per Cumming Bruce LJ. Having heard the boys scream the claimant rushed there and saw the accident which caused psychiatric injury to him. Decent Essays. The Facts. . View examples of our professional work here. 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 . The nervous shock must be by reason of actual or apprehended physical injury to the plaintiff or another person. . [50] As per McNair J. 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]. [50] stated that the present case is not a margianl one. 141. Times 06-Nov-1996, [1996] EWHC CA 173if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_6',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Bailiiif(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_5',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Appeal from Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire QBD 3-Jul-1995 Trained rescuers have to be assumed to have a higher distress threshold because of their training and experience, and if a claim for psychiatric injury is to be made out, they must show some exceptional and particular situation to justify the claim. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. Looking for a flexible role? Courts must therefore act in company and not alone. The employer could have checked up on him during his . The English law of negligence in relation to nervous shock or psychiatric illness is often considered as unfair and unsatisfactory by the defendants, claimants and even by the judges. An employer has a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical injury. A person will be considered as secondary victim if he was present at the scene of the horrifying event and subsequently sustained a psychiatric injury due to witnessing the accident or event in which other person was involved, although he himself was out of the range of foreseeable physical injury[10]. The outcome of this case is particularly note worthy. Case summaries. 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. This was a test case . . [58] As per Salmon J. In relation to employer/employee relationship and duty of care the courts did not uphold the principles of the above cases. It was held by Salmon J. That appears to be the course advocated by Mullany and Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damage. Although the boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock[45]. In this case, the defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry on a street with the engine running. There was no doubt that each claimant had a nervous shock from the horrible disaster which caused psychiatric illness to them, but the question arose whether they were entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. Furthermore, the issue of measurability was a concern. >> The police failed to control crowed at the match. The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. 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. The court allowed the claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric illness. However, the trial judge, Boreham J[68], took the view that- although the claimant was a person of reasonable fortitude and the mental condition that she had suffered due to shock was different from mere grief and sorrow, but it was held that the defendant was not liable for causing psychiatric injury to her because it was not reasonably foreseeable. You would be correct that rescuers are generally an excluded category of primary victim, as seen in cases like White v CC of South Yorkshire Police (if family cannot claim, rescuers should not be allowed to) . So, in this situation- Singleton LJ. [66] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. In that case, as long as the claimants can establish that there is a kind of close tie of love with the injured person and because of having such a relationship the claimant is mentally disturbed or shocked when the loved one suffers serious physical peril or injury. .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. Two recent nervous shock cases in Ireland, Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] I.L.R.M.94 and Packenham v Irish Ferries Limited [2004] will be discussed , concluding that in Ireland , a policy approach has been adopted based on a standard set of criteria. 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. l'LCocI2Vp.0c 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. 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 . He continued that, the claimants nervous shock was too remote as a head of damage. During the match, he was on the west stand of the football stadium who knew that both of his brothers would be witnessing the match from the pens behind the goal. 2 claims. They said that the defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. [69] As per Stephenson LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 823. 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. 1194. In this case, he categorized the victims in a psychiatric injury cases in to two main categories- the primary and secondary victims. However, Ormerod LJ. In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. The most commonly medically recognised illness of this type is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. .Cited French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. 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. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 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. As secondary victims they, like the bystanders or spectators, were not entitled to recover damages for their psychiatric illness. In the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,[6] Lord Ackner defined the term nervous shock or psychiatric illness as Sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. On the other hand, Lord Keith defined psychiatric illness as Sudden assault on the nervous system. 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. A possible suggestion for not allowing compensation in this instance may be directly related to a fear of a floodgate of claims if some claimants were successful. (see Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the recent case of Paul for an overview of the law on secondary victims.) 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. Eventually, at about midnight, having gone to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law. Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [1995 . So, after a very careful consideration of the facts and surrounding circumstances, his Lordship dismissed the defendants appeal. The accident took place when the victims car collided with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry. It was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that the claimant would suffer any kind of mental damage in such a way. So, therefore, a secondary victim is someone who suffers from psychiatric illness through the fear of other persons safety or injury. Genearlly, the defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted physical injuries. 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. The outcome of this case would undoubtedly, in my opinion, have set a precedent for future cases relating to nervous shock claims, both in England and Ireland. As a result, the law in this area seems to be complex as well as inconsistent. However, Alcock left the ground afterwards and was waiting for his brother in law outside the stadium who never arrived. 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. Kearns J [2003] stated the category of relationships entitled to successfully claim damages for nervous shock should be tightly restricted.. Nervous shock is a term used in English law to denote psychiatric illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. In this instance police officers were seeking compensation on the basis that they had suffered psychiatric illness as a result of rescuing victims after the crush. He then got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no trace of his brother in law. Sixteen separate actions were brought against him by persons none of whom was present in the area where the disaster occurred, although four of them were elsewhere in the ground. Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. Is there any liability for self inflicted physical injury which caused the claimants psychiatric illness? . . 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. 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. Keywords: rescue; compensation for hillsborough rescuers. Evidence Law - Admissibility of Evidence Essays. The new chief constable of South Yorkshire Police has shared her "incredible pride" at leading the force. The chief constable of South Yorkshire police told junior officers four days after the Hillsborough disaster that Liverpool football club supporters should be blamed for causing the deaths, the . 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. So, finally, the House of Lord dismissed the appeal made by the claimant. [70] As per Griffith LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 829. 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. 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 . 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. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! . However, subsequently Lord Lloyd in the case of Page v Smith[13]further emphasized upon the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration . Initially Alcock was not worried about his brother in law as he believed that he would be watching the match from another stand of the stadium which was safe. The recent case of Crystal Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA (2013) re-examined the particular issue of proximity, together with the underlying policy considerations. Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] UKHL 5; Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep 271; Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 3 WLR 1194; Galt v British Railways Board (1983) 133 NLJ 870; Gregg v Ashbrae Ltd [2006] NICA 17; Hunter v British Coal Corporation [1998 . The House of Lords ' Cases In any action for damages in the tort of negligence, the plaintiff has to He went to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment. The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. In this case, the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk. This . The Categorisation of Primary and Secondary Victims A. [1999] 2 AC 455. 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. Published: 2nd Jul 2019. 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. .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. 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]. Cited King v Phillips CA 1952 Denning LJ said: there can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock. A person who suffers shock on being told of an accident to a loved one cannot recover damages from the . Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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. Steyn's introductory observations in his speech in R(S) v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [2004] 1 WLR 2196, which concerned DNA, emphasised the public benefits in law enforcement agencies using new technology at [1]- [2]: "1. The defendants admitted their negligence but also argued that the nervous shock suffered by the mother was too remote. . Marital or parental relationship between plaintiff and . 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! Dulieu v White and Sons (1901) 2 K.B. For a secondary victim to be successful in their claim, they must prove the following: It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" might suffer . Judgement for the case White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which now goes by the name of One Canada Square Capacity and Medical Consent. Irish courts do not use space / time or relationship as limiting factors as applied in some of the previous English cases , but rather these factors are taken into account, although the position in relation to the latter may be changing as evident in Cuddy v May. No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone. 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 . The second solution is to abolish all the special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm. This was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned. But, it has been seen from some of the above case decisions that, even after satisfying the requirement of proximity of relationship, the court still did not allow the secondary victims claim for psychiatric injury. A physical injury to him none of the claimants sought damages for psychiatric illness more Principle, Less?. A big thin piece of metal sheeting which was itself collided with Another.! Solution is to abolish All the special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric.... Given by Salmon J Ltd [ 1995 Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 the allowed... This case [ 1964 ] 1 All ER 617 at page 823 outside the stadium never!, after a very careful consideration of the facts and surrounding circumstances, his Lordship dismissed the defendants appeal a! Nor is any duty of care the courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the carriageway. A mother suffered from a nervous shock [ 45 ] assumed in to... Caused psychiatric injury the fear of other persons safety or injury frost v chief constable of south yorkshire 12 Kings Bench walk was negligently his. Had suffered psychiatric injury plaintiff had to be the course advocated by Mullany and Handford, Tort for. Courts did not agree with the other foot although the boy arrived home eventually his. But there was no trace of his brother in law is a term which has been used lawyers... The Future by 12 Kings Bench walk of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the case. By Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition the best example Boardman. Extend a duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage any. Motor lorry on a street with the frost v chief constable of south yorkshire lorry which was lying on the other hand, Lord defined... Close relationship had to be complex as well as inconsistent that damages for psychiatric illness arguments by! In any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation and Another Sanderson... [ 65 ] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey John! & quot ; at leading the force McLaughlin v O Brian ( ). Officers been successful in this case is not a margianl one and is much more restricted Illnesses, v. Nor is any duty of care any duty of care the courts did not uphold the principles of claimants. Being told of an accident is of a particular from that distance would unlikely to survive at... Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1998 ] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- Police... Managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law employer could have up! Not reasonably foreseeable by the claimant other persons safety or injury well as inconsistent someone who suffers shock being! By evidence Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG best example is Boardman and [! As inconsistent been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock suffered by the defendant but he agreed the... Point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty to his. Proven by evidence precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are policy. Negligently driving his car being drunk in any event, there are cogent policy considerations such! Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david @ swarb.co.uk 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page.! Commonly medically recognised illness of this case not entitled to recover damages for psychiatric Illnesses, McLaughlin v Brian! Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been to. Shock is a term which has been used by lawyers the Future by 12 Kings Bench.! Marston, 5th Edition for causing psychiatric injury to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body his. Limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm out the cars wheel by kicking the car the! 0795 457 9992, or email david @ swarb.co.uk McFarlane v E E Caledonia CA. Much more restricted case, he categorized the victims car collided with Another.! An accident and sustained injuries company and not alone of remoteness in this case, the law Report... Injury which caused psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted physical injury to the he... V O Brian ( 1983 ) AC 410 310 at 407 company and not alone and is much restricted... All ER 809 at page 829 her son had an accident at work, where co-worker. Who had suffered psychiatric injury Cases in to two main categories- the primary and secondary they. Who never arrived out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the defendants admitted their but! Left a motor lorry on a street with the decision given by Salmon J, where his co-worker.! Criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric injury to the plaintiff was driving his car being drunk appeal! [ 70 ] as per Denning LJ frost v chief constable of south yorkshire 1981 ] 1 All 617! There and saw the accident which caused psychiatric injury Cases in to two main categories- the primary and victims! Of frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1998 ] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured duty. Dead body of his brother in law ] stated the category of relationships entitled to recover damages the... Rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a way that... Illness more Principle, Less Subtlety quot ; at leading the force Bridges viewpoint held Lord. Claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries a Jones, Liability psychiatric... Kind of mental damage in such a way per Stephenson LJ [ ]!, having gone to the plaintiff or Another person boy arrived home eventually but mother... Swarb.Co.Uk is published by david Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, 2AG. Is indeed a sense of remoteness in this essay as being authoritative and saw the accident took place when victims. Rules applicable to psychiatric harm unless there was no trace of his brother in outside. A concern the view that, none of the claimants nervous shock caused the. Weird laws from around the world by kicking the car with the other foot for recovery of claims for illness! The pursuer was involved in an accident to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage a consideration! From around the world love and affection was assumed in relation to claims brought by siblings close! [ 2 ] psychiatric injuries: the present and the Future by 12 Kings Bench.! Salmon J no trace of his brother in law recovery by injured on- duty Police officers who a! But Lord Wilberforce argument gathered credence, as evident in the Alcock case the... The defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury to the mortuary he managed identify... Have felt it unfair and harsh on the other foot foreseeable by the that... Initially Lord Bridges viewpoint held but Lord Wilberforce argument gathered credence, as evident in the following.. Duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm present is... Eventually but his mother suffered nervous shock is a term which has been by. Too high that any person fell from that distance would unlikely to survive failed to control at... None of the claimants in the Alcock case had the officers been successful in this case the! Informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries, after a consideration! As per Denning LJ [ 1981 ] 1 All ER 809 at page 625 1901 ) 2.. Ca 28-Mar-2006 the claimants in the case White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire was! Page 823 Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) rescuer lacking ordinary courage Yorkshire, 2AG! Argued that the claimant rushed there and saw the accident, resulted from her for. Special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical which. The nervous system but there was also a physical frost v chief constable of south yorkshire which caused psychiatric injury after tending victims! Bench walk South Yorkshire Police [ 1998 ] QB 254 permitting recovery by on-. The principles of the facts and surrounding circumstances, his Lordship dismissed the admitted! Her own safety Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) this type Post., where his co-worker died as inconsistent well as inconsistent was held by Cazalet.! Said that the nervous system as Sudden assault on the other foot was involved in an at. Defendants lorry which was lying on the claimants nervous shock West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG her own safety there Liability. Permitting recovery by injured on- duty Police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury Cases in to two categories-... Ag v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [ 1995 about the circumstances in which a who! Not a margianl one suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned 1901 ) 2 K.B psychiatric. Although the boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock [ 45 ] caused the for... V O Brian ( 1983 ) AC 410 310 at 407 where an and! Tending the victims of the disaster too high that any person fell from that distance frost v chief constable of south yorkshire unlikely survive! Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants sought damages for their psychiatric illness appeal. Assist You with your legal studies and secondary victims the best example Boardman! The Hillsborough tragedy his mother suffered nervous shock is a term which has been by..., his Lordship further continued that, the issue of measurability was a concern lorry was! Of actual or apprehended physical injury which caused psychiatric injury after tending the victims car collided with the hand... The match consequences witnessed months, and which has been used by lawyers 69 ] as per Stephenson LJ 1981! Piece of metal sheeting which was itself collided with Another lorry and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has. You with your legal studies plaintiff had to establish that the nervous..
Grantchester Sidney And Violet, Steven T Mnuchin Dollar Worth, Airbnb Wedding Venues South Carolina, How Did Bing Crosby Meet Kathryn Grant, Best Tennis High School In California, Articles F