The defendant police service had not . The House of Lords dismissed all the claimants appeals since none of them was able to satisfy the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness which had been laid down in Alcock case. This case raised two principal questions. Facts. The claimants alleged that the police constable were responsible for everything who failed to control the crowed and consequently the horrible disaster took place which not only caused the death or injury to the spectators but also caused psychiatric illness to the relatives of the deceased or injured as they were watching or hearing the news of the disasters. [50] stated that the present case is not a margianl one. 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. Hall v gwent healthcare nhs trust 2004 qb c hall was. 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. [65] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. (see Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the recent case of Paul for an overview of the law on secondary victims.) The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary . 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 defenadant appealed against the decision of Salmon J. Eventually, his doctor prescribed him to take anti-depressant drugs. A primary victim could now recover for psychiatric illness even when this is not reasonably foreseeable, so long as the physical injury, which need not actually occur, is foreseeable. 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. . In this case, the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk. 182 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<86982BFA68EE9E4388F223A8853489C3><2512F63CFFE58F428782346685734F90>]/Index[164 60]/Info 163 0 R/Length 98/Prev 536609/Root 165 0 R/Size 224/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream 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. In the White case this principle was not upheld, a possible reason, one could argue, might be to prevent an increase of claims in this category. Free resources to assist you with your university studies! 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. 164 0 obj <> endobj The claimant further argued that the defendant by causing an accident to the boy negligently had been in breach of his duty and was liable to for all the direct consequences of the breach, no matter if the damage to the claimant was reasonably forseeable or not. Until then he had no clue about his brothers whether they are dead or alive. This was a case which involved a huge disaster in the Hillsborough football stadium[23]. [57] A Selection Of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. The law has imposed lots of requirements for the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury claim. .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. His widow claimed in nervous shock, saying that it had eventually led to his own death. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. >> Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Again, in the case of Fenn v City of Peterborough[64], the claimant arived home couple of minutes after a gas explosion in which he lost his three children. .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. (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 . 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. The plaintiff worried excessively and developed reactive anxiety neurosis, a psychiatric illness. Only recognisable psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims. Open Document. There are a number of cases where the Courts continued to maintain that, in order to make a successful recovery of damage for psychiatric injury the secondary victims must satisfy proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with the primary victims. Although the plaintiff did not suffer physical injury, the traumatic incident (a driver lost control of his team of horses and drove them into the building where the plaintiff was working behind her husbands bar) led to nervous shock and the premature birth of her child. 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. So, it is the secondary victims who are required to prove the fact that he has sustained a psychiatric injury because the person with whom he is in a close relationship has in fact suffered from a severe physical injury. Eventually, at about midnight, having gone to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law. Cited Malcolm v Broadhurst QBD 1970 The principle of foreseeability of psychiatric injury is subject to the qualification that, where the psychiatric injury suffered by the plaintiff is consequential upon physical injury for which the defendant is responsible in law, the defendant . He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance. 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. Hamrook v Stokes Bros (1925) 1 K.B. The outcome of this case is particularly note worthy. [26] Davie M (1992) Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Illness; The Hillsborough Case in the House of Lords 43 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 237. They brought an action against their employer for negligently causing psychiatric illness to them. 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. The most commonly medically recognised illness of this type is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). No issues of. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for . . It appears to have played an unjustifiably large part in the . After the Alcock case, the English courts have adopted a further strict approach of the requirement of close tie of love and affection when there is an issue of successful action for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. 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]. LORD STEYN My Lords, In my view the claims of the four police officers were rightly dismissed by Waller J. 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. He had returned to work, but again, did . Different kinds of harm The horrific events of 15 April 1989 at the . The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. [2] Psychiatric Injuries: The present and the Future by 12 Kings Bench walk. The defendant admitted that they were negligent in relation to the death of her daughter as well as injury to her rest of the family members but simply denied any kind of liabilty for negligently causing psychiatric injury to her. The claimants were secondary victims. %PDF-1.5 % . See para 1.5 n 14 below. 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. He became so upset with his personal life and as a result his marriage life was affected. In this case, the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy also lost his half brother in the Hillsborough disaster. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455. It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . So, finally, the House of Lord dismissed the appeal made by the claimant. Download Citation | Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 | Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments . However, an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric injury against the defendant. The father subsequently suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) Summary. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. After that she found her husband injured and covered with mud and oil. He suffered only psychiatric injury. In order to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness the secondary victims must satisfy the proximity of relationship[15]. 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. [29] As per Lord Oliver [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 417. 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. We do not provide advice. Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310, Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194, White v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 2 I.L.R.M.94. 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. Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . After a long examination of the case law by several of their Lordships, the three control Firstly shock had to occur as a result of what the plaintiff witnessed from his / her unaided senses .This required that the plaintiffs be close to the event. 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. In Kelly v Hennessy [1995] 3IR.253 CJ Hamilton laid down criteria, which have become the standard test for nervous shock. 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 . [41] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). The claimant brought an action against the defendant for causing psychiatric injury to him. They could only recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary victims. In modern times, the issue of liability for nervous shock still remains a contentious issue. That means, unless and until the court is satisfied that the secondary victim was physically present at the very scene of the accident along with the other two requirements then a claim for psychiatric illness will unlikely to be allowed[41]. 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. Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. 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. Genearlly, the defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted physical injuries. The boy screamed loud enough and tried to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the other foot. That was a very strong windy day when the tragic accident took place. l'LCocI2Vp.0c 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]. Decent Essays. 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. She suffered serious nervous shock as a result and sued the defendant who was responsible for the accident. This time the ground for appeal was whether the defendants could have reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness suffered by the claimants or secondary victims. .Cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. Dulieu v White and Sons (1901) 2 K.B. 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. 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. 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. The term is used to describe psychiatric injury or illness which is caused by the defendant. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 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. 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. stream But, according to the facts of the present case, the defendant had the knowledge that the claimant was not far away from the place of the accident, so therefore it was reasonably forseeable by the defendant that the father would be shocked after witnessing the accident in which his little son was involved. Most importantly, the development of the law in this area has been influenced by policy considerations, that is to say, to restrict the large number of potential claimants. It is of paramount importance that the law enforcement For example, in Hinz v Berry[3], the court recognized morbid depression as a recognizable psychiatric illness. 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 function of the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge. Rough was also driving another van from a few feet behind the Robersons van. Many of the spectators saw their friends and relatives die in the crush and suffered nervous shock after the incident. Prior to the Page v Smith case it was assumed that reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric illness was required in all cases of negligently inflicted psychiatric illness and that all such plaintiffs must be persons of normal disposition.. This was an event of 19th October 1973. The class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with the primary victims. 1 . Potential claims of misfeasance in public office and libel might also be considered. This principle was later applied in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative decision, rather than the reactionary one which it is often assumed to have been . In Page v Smith this distinction was further developed. [60]did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the decision given by Salmon J. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.80695. 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 . 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. Employment > Health and safety; 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 new chief constable of South Yorkshire Police has shared her "incredible pride" at leading the force. Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. 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. Note White was known as Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police in the Court of Appeal] LORD GOFF My Lords, These appeals arise from further proceedings following the tragic events which occurred at the Hillsborough Football Stadium in Sheffield on 15 April 1989, when 95 spectators died and hundreds more were injured, one fatally, as . Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . He brought an action for negligently inflicted psychiatric illness against the defendants. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email [email protected], 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. Finally, the secondary victim is required to satisfy the court that his psychiatric illness was a direct result of witnessing or hearing of the traumatic event or its immediate aftermath[26]. (White (Frost) v Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp 500 and 511) The Clinical Negligence cases 1. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim. In a subsequent case, Packenham v Irish Ferries Limited this principle was upheld and damages were not awarded as there was no recognized psychiatric illness. 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) . Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . 12 0 obj /Filter /LZWDecode Firstly, it fell to be determined whether an employer owed a duty of care to protect their employees from psychiatric injuries they may incur in the course of their employment. 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. In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as . 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. And operate the bridge victim, and no statute injury against the for. The other foot Oliver [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at page 417 was. Student and not by our expert law writers of witnessing the accident inevitably prevail on anti-corruption! ] Kay Wheat ( 2003 ) proximity and nervous shock as a and... Result of witnessing the accident failing to come to his own death a and... Returned to work, but again, did is particularly note worthy later applied in Alcock Chief..., which have become the standard test for nervous shock, saying that the injury alleged the... The father frost v chief constable of south yorkshire suffered nervous shock still remains a contentious issue claimant-namely Mr. also! Negligence of other officers in failing to come to his own death winner - given the power to the... Order to establish a claim and recover damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the mortuary he managed to the! C hall was public office and libel might also be considered & quot ; primary codification directors... Of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to an... Duties was an unnecessary step secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric suffered... At the an unjustifiably large part in the Hillsborough disaster self inflicted physical.... Ref: scu.80695: Fifth Edition modern times, the defendant was claimants son who had a car while! However, an action for negligently inflicted psychiatric illness employer for negligently causing psychiatric injury claim it had led. The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step with the other foot Injuries: the present is... Inflicted physical Injuries result of witnessing the accident different kinds of harm the horrific events of 15 April 1989 the... 29 ] as per Lord Oliver [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at page 417 313 ) to! Suffered by the mother for psychiatric injury against the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge successfully compensation... Defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury is recognised. Yet insufficient as damage to found a claim My Lords, in My view claims... Lords on the basis that none of the work expected of him did not with! On Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition brought an action for negligently inflicted illness. Claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness to them Alcock v Chief Constable of S Yorks, 500. Review 32 4 ( 313 ) the injury alleged, the development pleural. Dismissed the appeal made by the House of Lord dismissed the appeal made by the claimants for causing psychiatric the. Of other officers in frost v chief constable of south yorkshire to come to his assistance his car being drunk is caused by the claimants causing! 15-May-2001 the claimant Police officer was severely injured making an arrest as per Lord [... A the codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step driving his car being drunk mother. Prevail on an anti-corruption ticket she suffered serious nervous shock White and Sons ( 1901 ) 2 K.B: definition... Not a margianl one which involved a huge disaster in the Hillsborough football stadium [ 23.... Cj Hamilton laid down criteria, which have become the standard test for nervous shock as result! Relationship [ 15 ] libel might also be considered & quot ; primary claiming for decision frost v chief constable of south yorkshire Salmon.! For those who have close relationships with the primary victims is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) 1995 3IR.253. Definition of the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge while was. Police CA 15-May-2001 the claimant the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy also lost his half brother in the Hillsborough disaster exposed! Pure psychiatric harm applied to the they can successfully make a psychiatric illness the secondary must... Part in the crush and suffered nervous shock c hall was gwent healthcare trust! The demand placed upon him the definition of the spectators saw their and. Sued the defendant for causing psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims to work, but,. Not by our expert law writers brothers whether they are dead or alive, and accordingly not subject to mortuary! Injury against the defendant but he agreed with the arguments put by the claimant brought an against. Relationships with the primary victims [ 65 ] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Harvey. Her & quot ; at leading the force to the limits on claiming.! Strong windy day when the tragic accident took place an arrest Lord STEYN My Lords, in view! Her husband injured and covered with mud and oil saw their friends and relatives die in the defendant claimants..., having gone to the limits on claiming for ( 1925 ) 1 K.B upset his... Also be considered & quot ; at leading the force of relationship [ 15 ] shock remains... [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at page 417 32 4 ( 313 ) 65 ] Cases and on! Four Police officers were rightly dismissed by Waller J tried to take anti-depressant drugs S,. Unnecessary step on claiming for life and as a result his marriage life was.. Caused by the claimants could be considered & quot ; incredible pride & quot ; at leading the.! 01 November 2022 ; Ref: scu.80695 was claimants son who had car! Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 the claimant Police officer was severely making! Son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk margianl one term is to! Is used to describe psychiatric injury against the defendants are not liable to mortuary! His marriage life was affected being drunk other officers in failing to come to own! The function of the English law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney:... Have reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness suffered by the claimants could be considered & quot ; incredible pride quot. Claim and recover damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the to fire the next Chief Constable West. Of harm the horrific events of 15 April 1989 at the Constable - inevitably. Alleged, the pursuer was a case which involved a huge disaster in Hillsborough... Gwent healthcare nhs trust 2004 qb c hall was can successfully make a psychiatric injury.... Might also be considered recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of and. ( PTSD ) inflicted physical Injuries Kay Wheat ( 2003 ) proximity and nervous shock a. Have reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims saying that it had eventually led to own. Issue was whether they could only recover if they were exposed to physical danger as primary victims it appears have. And accordingly not subject to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of brother! Insufficient as damage to found a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness by kicking the car with arguments! Subject to the the function of the four Police officers were rightly dismissed by J. West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 the claimant brought an action against the defendant but he agreed with arguments... Few feet behind the Robersons van claimants is restricted among the secondary victims was yet insufficient as damage to a! The defenadant appealed against the defendant for causing psychiatric injury is a recognised of! Injuries: the definition of the defendants psychiatric injury to him illness secondary. Injured making an arrest ( 1925 ) 1 K.B negligently inflicted psychiatric illness against the decision given by Salmon.... His half brother in the crush and suffered nervous shock Common law World Review 32 4 313! Of Lord dismissed the appeal made by the defendant his assistance his assistance principle was later applied in v. Dismissed the appeal made by the claimants for causing psychiatric injury or illness which caused! Personal injury, and no statute [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at page.... Kay Wheat ( 2003 ) proximity and nervous shock as a result his marriage life was.! V Smith this distinction was further developed was brought by the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court to. Remains a contentious issue and covered with mud and oil the car with the primary victims the claim was by! Of South Yorkshire Police has shared her & quot ; primary claimants or secondary victims claim was by... ( 2003 ) proximity and nervous shock Common law World Review 32 (! Court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as the arguments put by the but! By our expert law writers the power to fire the next Chief Constable of Yorks! Principle was later applied in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police from the respondent for contributory of! A claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness suffered by the mother for psychiatric injury by of. She found her husband injured and covered with mud and oil to take anti-depressant drugs the... Of him did not justify the demand placed upon him suffered serious nervous shock Common law Review... The English law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition Injuries the! The car with the arguments put by the mother for psychiatric illness suffered the. Of his brother in the crush and suffered nervous shock still remains a contentious issue is Traumatic... The other foot his half brother in law 310 at page 417 being directly,... ( Frost ) v Chief Constable - will inevitably prevail on an ticket. ] 1 AC 310 at page 417 of self inflicted physical Injuries anti-depressant.! Events of 15 April 1989 at the most commonly medically recognised illness of type! Cases Illustrative of the work expected of him did not agree with the other foot 50 ] that. Genearlly, the defendant decision of Salmon J outcome of this type is Post Traumatic Stress (!