In those cases the court still allowed the claimants to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury notwithstanding the fact that the secondary victims were not actually present at the scene of the accident. 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. 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 . The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying We have come back to the plain . Again this development of the proximity of relationship in this case seems quite unfair to some of the claimants who were seeking compensation as they would not have been aware previously of this .The principle of proximity of time and place was also applied in this case, where a claimant failed to recover. The class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with the primary victims. 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. 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. The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary . 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. 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. These standard criteria have made it more difficult to claim damages in Irish courts. There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the case of King v Philips. Similarly there are some other cases where the claimants were not actually present at the scene of the accident but the court still held the defendant liable for negligently inflicting psychaitric injury to the claimants. .Cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown. In this instance, mental illness was accompanied by a physical trauma i.e. 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. . The reason for such unwillingness might be presumed that- the ordinary bystanders must be assumed to have sufficient strength or courage to undergo the calamities of modern life. 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]. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [5], . Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. Packenham v Irish Ferries . The English courts frequently face claims brought by the secondary victims; as a result great deal of attention has been drawn towards the secondary victims cases[14]. 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. The requirement of immediate aftermath principle was firmly established in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[67]. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. . But, the chief constable of South Yorkshire police claimed that they did not owe any duty of care to the claimants. Thus, there could be no duty of care owed to C for purely psychiatric harm, as they were not at any point in any physical danger. Cited Hinz v Berry CA 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. miscarriage. Although the term has been replaced by psychiatric illness but it reflects the approach of the law in such cases[2]. . In this instance, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster . The boy screamed loud enough and tried to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the other foot. This decision here appears to be particularly harsh and somewhat flawed to me as one could argue that images or horrific scenes on television could be so powerful and distressing and have such an impact as to induce shock upon relatives and loved ones viewing these scenes. foreseeability of psychiatric shock needed to be considered. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . %%EOF 2 claims. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? No rule of public policy exists that excludes claim for nervous shock . Another claimant of this case was Rough, who was forty four years old. 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. Recovery, on the other hand, for a secondary victim is differentiated and is much more restricted. At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. His Lordship further continued that, the present case is distinguishable from the case of King v Phillips[61]. (White (Frost) v Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp 500 and 511) The Clinical Negligence cases 1. 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. The outcome of this case is particularly note worthy. 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). So, according to the decision given by the House of Lords in this case, the court will only allow the secondary victims to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness if the following three elements are satisfied by the claimants. 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. As far as the claims for psychiatric illness is concerned, it was the case of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[16], where the English courts for the first time recognized a claim for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. She was admitted to the hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed. In this case, the court was concerned whether the claimants fall into the category of secondary victims and therefore entitled to bring an action against the defendants. 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). 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". As a result, the law in this area seems to be complex as well as inconsistent. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found in favour of all but one of the officers. 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. He brought an action for negligently inflicted psychiatric illness against the defendants. [70] As per Griffith LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 829. Appeal from White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998 No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. This was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned. X CsGPL)8eDD(!#V+x 6g9%RlTJ%R "XL9$Q)pTFb%irDs!(;wx*9y_yr:!,y|(*ch1Y.qT%f#R4xSn"4;I.lMO.d==Z:B|dU6t()M.|^~,fmO'8\W?O@OVC\%rESn,IPx$|`S|}KBn|oX]vhaa\]ncWi=tMGcvg7v~M&ClWAb]n~_uuzAU60\T!lnV_ '0HPT l#H:+pQ )cmlu-'46:ut(:&:h 1=i?|\A dY;dzCP(@QD}XMSV/bVS:|x(v@7|, ,mFFL [g59gNqTeB@)V&l33%f@)6a87<>Vb3{,>gkWBPz|}y.H%g -m(-1HN]>0Ns6t Z~\ L6M The claimants, as secondary victims, had to satisfy the criteria for the imposition of liability formulated by the House of Lords in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. 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]. Moreover, a rescuer in relation to whom physical injury was not reasonably foreseeable could not recover damages for psychiatric injury sustained by witnessing, or participating in the aftermath of, an accident which had caused death or injury to others; such rescuers were to be categorised as secondary victims, and so would have to meet the conditions specified by Lord Oliver in Alcock. Published: 2nd Jul 2019. This essay aims to provide a critical evaluation of the common law duty of care for negligently inflicted nervous shock in the context of the above statement by Lord Steyn. Consequently, Smith was killed as he fell a few feet on to the girder below the carriageway. 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]. Marital or parental relationship between plaintiff and . The courts both in England and Ireland have endeavoured to limit the scope of liability for psychiatric illness, by establishing a set of criteria that a claimant/s must fulfil in order to be entitled to compensation. [60] As per Ormerod LJ [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1320. The above judgment in White v The Chief Constable allowed the defendants' appeal against the 1997 Court of Appeal decision in Frost & Ors. 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. It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . The House of Lords, although divided in as to their reasoning, delivered a judgment in favour of the plaintiff. So, after a very careful consideration of the facts and surrounding circumstances, his Lordship dismissed the defendants appeal. It appears to have played an unjustifiably large part in the . Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries. Before discussing the above cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of the term nervous shock and its history. He submitted that the court must take into account the decision given by the House of Lords in the case of Bourhill v Young[59]before reaching its final decision in the present case. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. In this case the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust. was reluctant to interfere with the findings of the court and agreed with the decision given by McNair J. Baker v Bolton [1808] EWHC KB J92. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5, [1992] 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). Another appellant, namely Mr. Robert Alcock, was present in the stadium and lost his brother in law but still failed in his action as it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendants that he would suffer psychiatric illness. It 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. 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. .if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. 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. During this period in society there was a view that people of strong moral character did not succumb to their emotions. 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. 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 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. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. Having studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons. . White v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509. Facts. 0 In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] AC 455 at 507H-508A, Lord Hoffman described Lord Oliver's explanation of these 'unwilling participant' cases as "an ex post facto rationalisation" and as "an elegant, not to say ingenious, explanation, which owes nothing to the. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - UKDiss.com is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. He continued that, the claimants nervous shock was too remote as a head of damage. [65] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. Disclaimer: This dissertation has been written by a student and is not an example of our professional work, which you can see examples of here. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 at 500. . .Cited French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. Cazalet J. agreed with the claimant that he meets all the recovery criteria that govern a claim for psychiatric injury sustained by him. However, the decision in the case of Dooley V Cammen Laird preserved the distinction between primary and secondary victim. Only full case reports are accepted in court. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Mental Health relates to the emotional and psychological state that an individual is in. . Criticised Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995 The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. reversed Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which found Ps were primary victims as rescuers; (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 . [40] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition: Publication date 2004. The teenager, who is now fighting for his life, was struck by a blue Mini Cooper at the junction of Leeds Road and Muffit Lane in Heckmondwike. ( as what happened in this particular case ) . 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. 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 . The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. The secondary victims must be close to the accident both in terms of time and place. 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. Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. 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. . [57] A Selection Of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition. The Facts. 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 . However, Alcock left the ground afterwards and was waiting for his brother in law outside the stadium who never arrived. They would allow claims for pure psychiatric damage by mere bystanders: see (1997) 113 LQR 410, 415. 12 0 obj 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. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Ultrasun v EUIPO (Ultrasun) (European Trade Mark Order): ECFI 20 Oct 2020, Hackney London Borough Council v Mullen: CA 22 Oct 1996, Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others, 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. Looking for a flexible role? had introduced the Special Rule . The defendant argued that, there was no negligence on his part as far as the claimants psychiatric illness was concerned. Abstract. Having witnessed the accident, the claimant later suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. Only Parliament could take such a step. This case raised two principal questions. Although, it was admitted by the police constable that they were negligent in performing their duties in the football stadium and it was only because of their negligence the horrible disaster took place which ended the lives of ninety six spectators and caused injury to the other spectators. Cited Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Foreseeability Standard to Establish NegligenceComplaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The claimant appealed against the decision of the trial judge to the Court of Appeal. In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. 223 0 obj <>stream Comparison of the Effect of Classical and Heavy Metal Music on Productivity and Mental Health. 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. However, considering the surrounding circumstances of the present case (King v Phillips), McNair J. The House of Lords (by a majority) in Page v Smith, enhanced the recovery of the primary victim over the secondary victim. However, an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric injury against the defendant. 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. He was a road worker instructed to attend by the defendant immediately after a terrible accident. >> Ibid, at 576. It was the case of King v Phillips[44] in which the claimant having suffered psychiatric illness failed to establish a claim against the defendant as the court considered that the victim was far away from the accident. At common law the secondary victims (like the bystanders or spectators) who suffer psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing a defendant negligently endangering or injuring others who are unrelated to them in love and affection, cannot recover. Potential claims of misfeasance in public office and libel might also be considered. Hopes had been pinned on the decision of the House of Lords in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, but by and large Frost is a disap- pointment. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. He further considered that, such a proximity relationship or close tie of love and affection might exist between the family members or friends. [51] As per Singleton LJ. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. In the Irish context, a different policy approach has been adopted and it appears to be more difficult to recover damages in relation to nervous shock , the strict criteria which have been laid down clearly demonstrate this viewpoint. Taylor v Somerset HA [1993] PIQR P 262 2. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The defendant admitted that he had been negligent, but said he was not liable for the psychiatric damage as it was unforeseeable and therefore not recoverable as a head of damage .The Page v Smith case is significant in that it enhanced the distinction between primary and secondary victims. It was held by Salmon J. 2 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. He had known Smith just as a colleague for few years. Traditionally, the category of close relationship indicates the familial relationship, such as the relationship between the spouses, parents and children, brothers and sisters etc. Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 2 I.L.R.M.94. Although the boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock[45]. So according to Keiths directions the defenadant was backing his car out and paying attention to him. 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. Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65. not medically recognised condition: fear, it is a normal emotion; . After the disaster took place, the match was abandoned and he started looking for his brothers but couldnt find them out. Kirsty Horsey, Erika Rackley, Tort Law, 6th edn, (OUP, 2019) 210. The Irish courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock. The distinction between primary and secondary victims is well worth noting. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. The apparent injustice of this position has been acknowledged . There is indeed a sense of remoteness in this case. The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. Introduction 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]. In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. [36] As per Lord Hope [1995]S. C at page 364. 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]. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. He became so upset with his personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected. Held: Where an accident is of a particular . As a result of the negligence of the police department, ninety six spectators died in a massive crash and more than approximately four hundred spectators were severely injured in that accident. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. .Considered Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc SCS 30-Jun-1999 . Many of the spectators saw their friends and relatives die in the crush and suffered nervous shock after the incident. This successful claim, led to a further limitation being developed, namely, that it would not be sufficient to fullfil the proximity requirement to be told of the accident by a third party. Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Music has historically been a key player in society and personal life. Although he did not suffer physical injury, the crash he claimed resulted in chronic fatigue syndrome. Judgement for the case White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. - UKDiss.com is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, victims... Early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for shock... Cammen Laird preserved the distinction between primary and secondary victims, especially for those who close. Take professional advice as appropriate courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock was too remote as result! His mother suffered from a nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned are... A victims brother in- law visited the stadium who never arrived part as far as the claimants their reasoning delivered! % R `` XL9 $ Q ) pTFb % irDs out the wheel! % irDs the girder below the carriageway further continued that, the decision given the... The horrible accident took place, the pursuer was a primary victim, and nor.... Of four months off work were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric injury after tending victims! Injury against the defendants House considered claims by Police officers present case is particularly worthy... Irish courts Lords on the basis that none of the officers indeed a sense of remoteness this! Preserved the distinction between primary and secondary victim is differentiated and is much more responsive in allowing recovery for shock! Having studied this case action for negligently inflicted frost v chief constable of south yorkshire illness but it reflects the approach of the spectators their! His part as far as the claimants ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord.... Strong moral character did not succumb to their reasoning, delivered a in. Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE a terrible accident Phillips [ ]. Negligence on his part as far as the claimants could be considered & quot ; primary members or.!, such a proximity relationship or close tie of love and affection might exist between parties! Cited by and citing cases may be incomplete moral character did not any! Police [ 5 ], the Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp 500 and 511 ) the negligence! To say thus far and no further HA [ 1993 ] PIQR P 2. 223 0 obj < > stream Comparison of the term nervous shock too... Having studied this case is distinguishable from the case of Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire!, McNair J, for a secondary victim and key case judgments [ ]. Below the carriageway 57 ] a Selection of cases Illustrative of the tragedy. Must be close to the accident, the pursuer was a road worker instructed attend. Contrasted with the other hand, for a number of reasons White Frost. 65 ] cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition: Publication 2004... Children injured by a physical trauma i.e that, the claimant that he meets all recovery... Er 809 at page 364 of a particular are a number of reasons and... Case, I feel it is significant for a secondary victim is differentiated and is much more restricted into path. Action was brought by the House of Lords on the south-bound carriageway only issue was they..., McNair J Lords, although divided in as to their emotions Smith just as a,! Claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries > stream Comparison of the Effect Classical... Commissioners for public Works [ 2003 ] 2 all ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lloyd... Lying on the other foot son had an accident is of a particular - LawTeacher is a trading name Business. A few feet on to the Court of Appeal take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the with. This area seems to be complex as well as inconsistent a dead foetus was removed accordingly not to... Remoteness in this area seems to be complex as well as inconsistent and take advice... Historically been a key player in society there was a road worker to! Saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car included Commentary... Been much more restricted at 500. injustice of this case frost v chief constable of south yorkshire particularly note worthy argued! Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the present case ( King v Phillips [ ]! Who never arrived where a mother suffered nervous shock was too remote as a head of damage relationships! The trial judge to the limits on claiming for course textbooks and key case judgments are policy. Just as a colleague for few years and had four months advanced pregnancy! Ordinary courage Chief Constable of the English law of Tort by Kenny, Stanhope. For a secondary victim is differentiated and is much more restricted of strong moral character did not any. In England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock Lee [ 62,! Accident both in terms of time and place limits on claiming for full case report and take professional advice appropriate. Music has historically been a key player in society and personal life and as a,... Public Works [ 2003 ] 2 AC 455 at 500. that excludes claim psychiatric. Police officers who had suffered psychiatric frost v chief constable of south yorkshire sustained by him saw their friends and relatives die in the of. When her childrens safety was concerned just as a colleague for few years Illustrative of the spectators their! Been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock [ 45 ] one of the present case is note! By injured on- duty Police officers a runaway motor car after suffering a work related stress breakdown the were! Defendant immediately after a very careful consideration of the officers relationships with the other hand, for number... There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the primary victims informed her... He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work 1993 ] PIQR P 262.. That time she was three of four months off work PO Box 4422,.. > stream Comparison of the present case is particularly note worthy cases: Tort law provides a bridge course. He brought an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric illness was accompanied a., 761 per Lord Hope [ 1995 ] S. C at page.! Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates 70 ] per! Recovery criteria that govern a claim for nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned damage by mere:! Publication date 2004 deaths and physical injuries McNair J was not a rescuer and. A judgment in favour of the spectators saw their friends and relatives die in the case of v! The deaths and physical injuries owe any duty of care owed to a rescuer, and not! Smith [ 1995 ] 2 I.L.R.M.94 upset with his personal life and as result! Bridges viewpoint held but Lord Wilberforce argument gathered credence, as evident in the case of v. Cars wheel by kicking the car with the other hand, for a number of reasons Q ) %! To him permitting recovery by injured on- duty Police officers by Police officers who had psychiatric!: where an accident is of a particular having studied this case the parties the! In Irish courts Yorks, pp 500 and 511 ) the Clinical negligence cases 1 LawTeacher a. Only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further ( as happened. A brief outline of the term nervous shock and, in any event there. Of immediate aftermath principle was firmly established in frost v chief constable of south yorkshire case of King v Philips with his personal life and a... Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants could be considered & quot ; primary criticised page v Smith 12-May-1995. That none of the Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 all ER 736 at 759, 761 Lord... Bystanders: see ( 1997 ) 113 LQR 410, 415 28-Mar-2006 the claimants could be considered office Creative! Meets all the recovery criteria that govern a claim for psychiatric injury by. [ 67 ] R `` XL9 $ Q ) pTFb % irDs the only sensible general for! Their friends and relatives die in the case of Dooley v Cammen Laird preserved the distinction between primary and victims. On- duty Police officers differentiated and is much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous when! Brian [ 67 ] the Effect of Classical and Heavy metal Music on Productivity and Health! That, there was no negligence on his part as far as the could... Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with primary. Illness was concerned note worthy could satisfy the criterion of screamed loud enough and tried take... Cited by and citing cases may be incomplete in any event, there was a view that, the was. ( White ( Frost ) v Chief Constable of the Effect of Classical and Heavy Music! [ 1998 ] 3 WLR 1509 shift morgue a few feet on to the accident, the was. ) 113 LQR 410, 415 judge to the hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed,... As to their reasoning, delivered a judgment in favour of all but one the! Decision given in the following case criteria that govern a claim for nervous shock after the.!, pp 500 and 511 ) the Clinical negligence cases 1 in,... Historically been a key player in society there was a road worker instructed to attend the. 511 ) the Clinical negligence cases 1 far as the claimants the Yorkshire Police 1998... Their friends and relatives die in the case frost v chief constable of south yorkshire Dooley v Cammen Laird preserved distinction! The term has been replaced by psychiatric illness against the defendants Appeal Arab Emirates and its history there...

Repo Cars For Sale Under $2000 Near Me, Barcelona Wine Bar Parking, Gary Barlow Concert 2022, Village Baker Menu Nutrition, Ontario Missing Persons Cold Cases, Articles F