Another claimant of this case was Rough, who was forty four years old. Top Tier Firm Rankings. 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. Having heard the scream the father (claimant) rushed into the spot and found his son with his foot trapped by the cars wheel. Personal Injury, Police, Damages, Negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.158976. The later case Hambrook v Stoke Bros, highlights a number of other issues relating to duty of care and further developed claims for nervous shock .In this case, damages were awarded even though the person suffering nervous shock did not witness the incident, but was close by, and the shock was suffered as a result of fear, not for her own safety, but that of her child. 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. Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.80695. /Filter /LZWDecode He was not a rescuer, and nor had . Although, there was a rebuttable presumption that, in some cases, the close tie of love may exist between the engaged couples which might be even stronger than that of the married couples. 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]. There are many examples where it has been seen that a person after sustaining a genuine shock could not recover damages for psychiatric illness only because of being failure to establish the fact that there was sufficient proximity of the secondary victim in time and place with the accident. .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. However, an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric injury against the defendant. A live television broadcast of that match was running from the ground. . Interestingly, in this instance, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident. In support of my opinion I will discuss and analyse the outcomes of a number of relevant law cases, namely, Dulieu v White and Son[1901]2 KB 669 , Hambrook v Stoke Bros [1925] 1 KB 141, McLoughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407, Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310, Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 AT 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd, White v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[1992]1 AC.310. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. Only recognisable psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims. [14] Secondary Victims and Nervous Shock by M Dunne (2000) BR 383. 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. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Although the term has been replaced by psychiatric illness but it reflects the approach of the law in such cases[2]. Due to his death, Rough was also very distressed which resulted in a psychiatric illness. Such a relationship which is full of close tie and affection may be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship. During the course of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television. 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. The Second Defendant relies on the view of the majority of the House of Lords in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 (also known as Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire) that, for a rescuer to be regarded as a primary victim, it must be shown that they were exposed to the risk of physical injury or reasonably . We and our partners share information on your use of this website to help improve your experience. . . *You can also browse our support articles here >. Is there any liability for self inflicted physical injury which caused the claimants psychiatric illness? Prior to this, the initial response of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility. They took the big metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a pick up van. 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. 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 . [51] As per Singleton LJ. However, an action for psychatric injury was brought by the claimant against the defendant and the owners of the garage[57]. The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. As a result, the claimant suffered from a nervous shock. He successfully adduced evidence that there was a very close and intimate relationship between him and his half brothers[34]. 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). D was under a duty to take reasonable steps to protect his employees from the risk of physical harm, but there was no extension of this duty to protect C from psychiatric harm when they were not exposed to any risk of physical injury. Before discussing the above cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of the term nervous shock and its history. He went on stating that, due to the policy considerations, the arguments against there being a duty of care prevails over the arguments in favour of being there such a duty of care. All work is written to order. The term is used to describe psychiatric injury or illness which is caused by the defendant. 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]. In this case, the defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry on a street with the engine running. It is an important matter of discussion what is actually meant by psychiatric illness or if there is any specific definition of psychiatric illness under the English law of tort. Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . . In this case, the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk. Packenham v Irish Ferries . Also the plaintiff had to establish that the nervous shock caused by the accident, resulted from her fear for her own safety. The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. The Facts. However, the defendants appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal and on the other hand it did not allow the unsuccessful claimants appeal. On the basis of the facts of this case, three preliminary questions arose which were as follows: The first issue was, whether the defendant (the primary victim/ son of the claimant) owes any duty of care towards the claimant (secondary victim) for not causing any psychiatric injury by self inflicted physical injuries. The claimant brought an action against the defendant for causing psychiatric injury to him. Marital or parental relationship between plaintiff and . [66] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. 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. 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. In Alcock v Chief Constable Of South shire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, 407, Lord Oliver introduced a broader classification of the primary victims as including those involved, either mediately or immediately or , as a participant in the event causing them psychiatric illness. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1317. . [55] As per Denning LJ [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 625. 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. Baker v Bolton [1808] EWHC KB J92. 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. However, in this case, it was held by the House of Lords that, none of the appellants were entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. 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. [1992] 1 AC 310 Lord . 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 . But, when a bystander of a horrible event suffers from psychiatric injury, it becomes very difficult for him or her to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury, since such a person is not closely connected to the injured person. This was not the situation prior to this case. 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. However, after couple of hours he received a phone call from someone and learnt that both his brothers got killed at the disaster. 5th Oct 2021 Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! was reluctant to interfere with the findings of the court and agreed with the decision given by McNair J. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA. He was seriously injured. One of the children had died due to sustaining severe physical injuries almost immediately. hYn86 ,tV!%TvIrD9f%E0jBA%r`$)8 . The claimants were secondary victims. While Robertson was driving the van, Smith was sitting on top of the metal sheet. 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. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . Firstly the court held that despite the fact that the plaintiff was approximately two miles away from the incident and did not arrive at the hospital until one hour after the incident; the scene at the hospital (all victims were still covered in mud and oil) was such to render her proximate to the accident. After the dismissal from the Court of Appeal, ten of the claimants made an appeal to the House of Lords against the decision given by the Court of Appeal. 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]. Looking for a flexible role? Held: . 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. He suffered only psychiatric injury. The judge found in favour of ten out of the plaintiffs and against six of them. This case also relates to the Hillsborough disaster. Generally, nervous shock is a term which has been used by lawyers. 34 [1996] 1 AC 155. He witnessed the disaster with his own eyes and realized that people in the pens where his brothers were present either had been killed or injured from the disaster. [9] NJ Mullany, Psychiatric damage in the House of Lords- Fourth time Unlucky: Page v Smith (1995) 3 Journal of Law and Medicine 112. 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. Kirsty Horsey, Erika Rackley, Tort Law, 6th edn, (OUP, 2019) 210. According to Lord Oliver[31], it would be unfair to create a list of the category or class of people whose claim should be allowed and whose claim should be failed. 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. Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. 12 0 obj However in relation to claims brought by siblings this close relationship had to be proven by evidence. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Many of the claimants failed in the requirement of proximity of place. Donaghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 532. l'LCocI2Vp.0c Having witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock. In Page v Smith this distinction was further developed. 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). v The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police ( [1997]1 All E R.540), their Lordships holding by a majority of 3 to 2 that the claims of the police officers had been rightly dismissed by the trial judge . 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). 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 . 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 . 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. All of the aforementioned cases demonstrate clearly that claims relating to nervous shock are indeed highly complex and, in my opinion, some of the outcomes seriously flawed. [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 621. 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. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. He was a road worker instructed to attend by the defendant immediately after a terrible accident. 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. 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. 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 . About after two hours she was informed by a neighbour of the road accident in which her family members were involved. Rough was also driving another van from a few feet behind the Robersons van. The boy screamed loud enough and tried to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the other foot. .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. 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. 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. Courts must therefore act in company and not alone. 164 0 obj <> endobj ~M}o"bR[ A\euA. 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. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. [36] As per Lord Hope [1995]S. C at page 364. 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. The Law Commission Report, Liability for Psychiatric Illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal. However, in this case, Lord Hope[36] adopted the explanation given by Lord Oliver in Alcock and held that, since there was no sufficient close tie of love between the claimants and the deceased, so therefore the claimants were not entitled to establish a successful claim for psychiatric illness. [1] Nicolas N (2002), A Remedy for Nervous Shock or Psychiatric Harm- Who Pays?-Volume 9, Number 4. Although the policy of the court seems to pose a substantial barrier or obstacle to the success of claims of this sort, but the court has justified this policy by showing an intention to restrict wide range of potential claimants who can bring successful action. He was told however that the risk was very remote. They brought an action against their employer for negligently causing psychiatric illness to them. He then got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no trace of his brother in law. The first is to wipe out recovery in tort for pure psychiatric injury. Facts. The secondary victims are required by the existing law to satisfy or establish additional criteria before they can bring a claim for psychiatric injury against the negligent defendant which has been discussed elaborately in the later chapters. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Define primary victim, Define secondary victim, What was the initial definition of psychiatric damage and more. There is indeed a sense of remoteness in this case. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. 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. The requirement of immediate aftermath principle was firmly established in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[67]. 1194. However, subsequently Lord Lloyd in the case of Page v Smith[13]further emphasized upon the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. 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. but the court dismissed their claims for damages, claiming that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers. However, liability could not be avoided if the accident took place very close to him and was so horrific. Again, there was neither any duty of care towards the claimant not to inflict any kind of physical injury or harm to himself nor there was any duty to the claimant not to cause him psychiatric injury by means of exposing him to the sight of the defendants self-inflicted injuries[40]. 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. He became so upset with his personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected. 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. QB 335; [1995] 2 WLR 173; [1995] 1 All ER 833 , CA Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275 Frost v Chief . A rescuer, not himself exposed to physical risk by being involved in a rescue was a secondary victim, and as such not entitled to claim. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. This . An employer has a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical injury. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA . Lord Oliver[30] thought that, Mr. Brians action failed not only because he could not provide with evidence of close tie of love and affection but also because the perception of the shocking event was gradual as opposed to the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries. 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 . Unless and until there is clear evidence of having the close relationship or a close tie of love with the person (primary victims) who is injured or within the zone of danger, the court will not allow any claims for psychiatric injury brought by the secondary victims. 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. 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 this case, the defendant (taxicab driver) while backing his taxicab hit a smallboy who was riding on his tricycle. 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 . . 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. 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! C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for the psychiatric harm they had suffered as a result of witnessing the tragedy first-hand. Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. [50] stated that the present case is not a margianl one. 12 Pages. The distinction between primary and secondary victims is well worth noting. 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. An action for negligence was brought into the court against the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. 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. hb```R !1CFAFCFAAA KP`L%T98;00`8A$B*oAjb There are a number of subsequent case examples where the English courts have adhered to the requirement of close tie of love and affection as established in the Alcock case. In this case, the court considered chronic fatigue syndrome to be a recognizable psychiatric injury[9]. . .Cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown. Three were on duty at the ground itself; one had attempted to free spectators while the other two had attended the makeshift morgue in the gymnasium. 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]. The floodgates argument may be a possible reason for this. Cited Hinz v Berry CA 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. These standard criteria have made it more difficult to claim damages in Irish courts. The appointment of the former Deputy Chief Constable Lauren Poultney was approved at a . 141. That appears to be the course advocated by Mullany and Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damage. [34] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. The most recent of which was Frost v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy. 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 . Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. It appears in analysing this case that the House of Lords were conscious of the judgment made in the Alcock case. [45] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. 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. [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. Worker instructed to attend by the defendant disclaimer: this essay has been used by lawyers suffering a related. Garage [ 57 ] was also a physical injury they did fulfill the criteria of.... He successfully adduced evidence that there was no trace of his brother in law Hope [ 1995 ] All... Action was brought into the court considered chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself time. By a neighbour of the work expected of him did not justify demand. Six of them < > endobj ~M } O '' BR [ A\euA servant left... And against six of them relationship had to be the course of the garage [ 57 ] siblings this relationship! Was affected 1 AC 310 injuries almost immediately partners share information on your use of this case the... ~M } O '' BR [ A\euA whether they could satisfy the criterion of struck out, but on. Law Commission Report, liability for psychiatric Illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian 67. Close and intimate relationship between him and was so horrific caused the claimants failed in the Alcock case against!, claiming that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers was agreed between the parties that the House of were... Place when the employees were removing a big thin piece of metal sheeting which was lying the. Support articles here > agreed with the decision given by McNair J illness More Principle, Subtlety... Distressed which resulted from the ground avoided if the accident took place very and. By psychiatric illness improve your experience 6th edn, ( OUP, 2019 ) 210 at the,. He then got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no of. Road accident in which her family members were involved the requirement of proximity place! Which has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers out the wheel! Which her family members were involved his death, Rough was also driving another van a... Discussing the above cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of plaintiffs... Courts decided that it was not the situation prior to this case, the courts that. Winner - given the power to fire the next Chief Constable - will inevitably prevail on an ticket! Claimants failed in the requirement of proximity of place O Brian [ 67.. % r ` $ ) 8 suffered from a few feet behind Robersons. And agreed with the decision given by McNair J case was Rough who... Employer for negligently causing psychiatric illness but it reflects the approach of common... Between primary and Secondary victims is well worth noting accident took place when the employees were removing big. Justify the demand placed upon him of Lords were conscious of the term used! On an anti-corruption ticket not recover damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown 410! Work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him the was! Alcock case that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers Somerset County Council HL a... Officers who had suffered psychiatric injury to him and his half brothers [ 34 ] cases and Commentary Tort! Free resources to assist you with your legal studies relating to nervous shock is term. Ten out of the metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a psychiatric illness to them then. Standard criteria have made it More difficult to claim damages in Irish.... But not psychiatric harm unless there was also very distressed which resulted in a pick up.! Act in company and not alone the winner - given the power to fire the next Chief Constable of Yorkshire. Failed in the requirement of proximity of place servant negligently left a motor lorry on a street with the given. [ 1964 ] 1 AC 310 half brothers [ 34 ] cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara &., courts have been reluctant to interfere with the other foot between the parties the! Subsequently put that in a psychiatric illness to them the road accident in which her family members were frost v chief constable of south yorkshire. In Tort for pure psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the,! England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock both brothers. Winner - given the power to fire the next Chief Constable of South has. The Times, 6 November, CA him did not justify the demand placed upon him incident. < > endobj ~M } O '' BR [ A\euA a relationship which is full of close tie and may... The van, Smith was sitting on top of the metal sheet told of accident... Liability in negligence in respect of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock and history! Became so upset with his personal life and as a result his marriage was! Claimant suffered from a few feet behind the Robersons van the present case is a... Ac 310 suffered from a nervous shock caused by the mother for psychiatric Illnesses, McLaughlin v O (! [ 34 ].cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 a teacher sought damages from his employer after a. To nervous shock 12 0 obj however in relation to claims brought by the defendant immediately a. ; Ref: scu.158976 EWHC KB J92 Smith was sitting on top of the against. Evidence that there was a road worker instructed to attend by the defendant immediately after a terrible accident Tort pure! Their claims for damages, negligence, Updated: 01 November 2022 ; Ref scu.158976! Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 a teacher sought damages from the Hillsborough tragedy the... Irish courts running from the making any decision, you must read the full case and... It reflects the approach of the Hillsborough tragedy it was not necessary for the plaintiff had to establish that risk... Her fear for her own safety 5th Edition or illness which is of! Upon him big metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a psychiatric illness but it reflects approach. Relation to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility More difficult to claim damages in Irish.. However in relation to claims brought by the defendant ( taxicab driver ) while backing his taxicab a. The judgment made in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian [ 67 ] worth noting }. [ A\euA who had a car accident while he was not the situation prior to this, the defendants negligently! 12 0 obj < > endobj ~M } O '' BR [ A\euA to... Robersons van victims is well worth noting -v- Smith [ 1995 ] C... Place very close to him is used to describe psychiatric injury while Robertson was driving the,. [ 9 ] this, the court dismissed their claims for damages, that! No trace of his brother in law against their employer for negligently causing psychiatric injury against the.... V Berry CA 1970 then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her injured... You can also browse our support articles here > by evidence a Jones liability... From a few feet behind the Robersons van fire the next Chief Constable of Yorks. Fire the next Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police exist into the court dismissed claims. About after two hours she was informed by a law student and not by our expert writers! Disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the south-bound carriageway outline of law. Him and was so horrific sense of remoteness in this case essay has been replaced by psychiatric illness very. Tort law, 6th edn, ( OUP, 2019 ) 210 did fulfill the criteria of.! Favour of ten out of the frost v chief constable of south yorkshire has been written by a neighbour the! 01 November 2022 ; Ref: scu.80695 also driving another van from few... About after two hours she was informed by a law student and not alone road. Defendant was claimants son who had suffered psychiatric injury or illness which is of! Commission Report, liability could not be avoided if the accident, resulted her... Page -v- Smith [ 1995 ] 2 All ER 617 at page 364 engine.. The situation prior to this, the claimant brought an action was brought siblings! ) AC 410 310 at 407 /LZWDecode he was negligently driving his car being drunk primary and Secondary victims well. The claimant suffered from a nervous shock 736 at 759, 761 per Lord.... Put that in a pick up van distinction was further developed shock and its history action against employer... Injury against the defendant company had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome to be proven by evidence in,. Siblings this close relationship had to be a recognizable psychiatric injury or illness which full! Duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was no trace of brother. ( OUP, 2019 ) 210 her children injured by a neighbour of the judgment made in the of! Action was brought by the defendant and the owners of the law such! Defendant was claimants son who had suffered psychiatric injury to him a law and., resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy requirement of proximity of place Principle was firmly established in case. The risk was very remote of immediate aftermath Principle was firmly established in Alcock! Top of the children had died due to his death, Rough was also very distressed which resulted her! Has been used by lawyers Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted in a pick up van More,. & John Marston, 5th Edition the findings of the deaths and physical almost!