1194. [51] As per Singleton LJ. Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310. The requirement that the secondary victims must be physically present to the accident or its immediate aftermath was for the first time established by Lord Wilberforce in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[42] which subsequently had been approved by the House of Lords in the leading case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire[43]. The law on recovery of damages for psychiatric illness is entirely based on common law. As soon as she arrived to the hospital, she was informed that her youngest daughter was killed. %%EOF But that would be contrary to precedent and, in any event, highly controversial. She was admitted to the hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed. The Supreme Courts decision was to disallow recovery as there was no more than a remote risk of contracting a disease. 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". Despite of establishing a close tie of love where the secondary victims fails to satisfy the requirement of proximity in time and place with the accident, the court will not entilte them to recover damages for psychiatric illness. 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . Judgment - White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued. We and our partners share information on your use of this website to help improve your experience. Free resources to assist you with your university studies! .Considered Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc SCS 30-Jun-1999 . [39] that- the defendant did not owe any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing a psychiatric injury by self inflicted physical injuries. He then decided to leave Gotham for a while after having a parent's association, and later the police, on his case (which resulted in Gordon becoming alcoholic and cheating on his wife) and had to shift his focus on the countryside, spending most of his time in scouts camps, wearing a scout chief uniform over his Batsuit, to cover his identity as the Batman. Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. Two of the claimants found their relatives or friend severely injured whereby one of them had his relative who escaped unhurt. It appears in analysing this case that the House of Lords were conscious of the judgment made in the Alcock case. << 0 This was a test case . She alleged that, as result of suffering from psychiatric illness she had a change in her personality that seriously affected her capabilities as a mother and wife. 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. The class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with the primary victims. . 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 plaintiffs in the case were police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium disaster. The above judgment in White v The Chief Constable allowed the defendants' appeal against the 1997 Court of Appeal decision in Frost & Ors. . swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. 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 facts of this case are as follows, the plaintiff, Mr. He had known Smith just as a colleague for few years. Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. [39] As per Cazalet LJ. 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. 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. However, the trial judge, Boreham J[68], took the view that- although the claimant was a person of reasonable fortitude and the mental condition that she had suffered due to shock was different from mere grief and sorrow, but it was held that the defendant was not liable for causing psychiatric injury to her because it was not reasonably foreseeable. There is indeed a sense of remoteness in this case. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Many of the claimants failed in the requirement of proximity of place. 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. At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. X (Adopted Child: Access To Court File): FC 9 Sep 2014, Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others, Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1), Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd, Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm), Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc, Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another, Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar, Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd, Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. Kirsty Horsey, Erika Rackley, Tort Law, 6th edn, (OUP, 2019) 210. 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. In this case, the defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry on a street with the engine running. Until then he had no clue about his brothers whether they are dead or alive. Such a relationship which is full of close tie and affection may be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship. 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 . Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. Case summaries. 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. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? This was not the situation prior to this case. The Court of Appeal held that no claim could be brought by a secondary victim for psychiatric injury caused by a separate horrific event removed in time from the original negligence, accident or first horrific event. Potential claims of misfeasance in public office and libel might also be considered. . However, considering the surrounding circumstances of the present case (King v Phillips), McNair J. Afterwards she went down to the corridor and came across one of her children crying who had fer face cut and discoloured with mud and soil. The lorry ran violently down the hill. The claimant appealed against the decision of the trial judge to the Court of Appeal. Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. Only recognisable psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims. 5th Oct 2021 The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! 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 . 669. In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, the House of Lords applied that distinction to police officers (and others) who were not themselves within the zone of physical danger caused by the defendant's negligence, but had to deal with the consequences of catastrophic harm to others in the course of their duties . The victims were taken to the nearest hospital by that neighbour. The mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy. foreseeability of psychiatric shock needed to be considered. . He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance. During the course of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television. Cited - Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991. Lord Wilberforce argued that it was necessary to develop further criteria including strict proximity in time, a close relationship, direct means of communication (personal witness). CJ Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath. Since they were not endangered in the discharge of their service or in rescuing, as employees and/or rescuers, the police officers were only secondary victims. As a result of the tragic death of his workmate he was so upset and mentally distressed. In Alcock case, the House of Lords took the view that- the secondary victims will be entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury if he can establish the fact that, the defendant could have reasonably foreseen that he would suffer from a psychiatric illness due to the negligent act as there was proximity of relationship between both the primary and secondary victims. It seems apparent from the Alcock case judgments that the court will only emphasize on close tie of love and affection before allowing any secondary victims to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. 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. Courts said the following elements are necessary to establish liability for nervous shock The plaintiff must establish that he suffered a recognizable psychiatric illness, the illness must have been shock induced; caused by the defendants act or omission. YMzBCCCBS$Gtds]1w6F[:s\mPq%`:CGqt`*SzTAER3 baP0/XlX>,eoWf0`X }@| D 12 0 obj In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. Facts. Held: . 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. In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. More news from across Yorkshire Cited Hambrook v Stokes Brothers CA 1925 The defendants employee left a lorry at the top of a steep narrow street unattended, with the engine running and without having taken proper steps to secure it. It was not disputed that D was negligent or, indeed, that this had caused nervous shock to C. The Court of Appeal had previously found in favour of C and D appealed to the House of Lords. The claimants were secondary victims. View history. However, Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. 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. .Cited McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm) CA 2002 In deciding whether a duty of care is established the court must go to the battery of tests which the House of Lords has taught us to use, namely: . . No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone. As the original inquest verdicts are reviewed, arguably the case of Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER should be revisited due to fresh inquest evidence on time of deaths. 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. 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). 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 , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. Consequently, actions brought by the potential claimants or the victims of psychiatric illness have often been unsuccessful for a number of reasons despite of having been suffered genuine recognized psychiatric injury[1]. 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. 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. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. The plaintiff, Mr Smith was deemed to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the accident and risked personal injury. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. [23] Davie M (1992) Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Illness: The Hillsborough Case in the House of Lords 43 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 237. 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. 12 Pages. His Lordship further continued that, the present case is distinguishable from the case of King v Phillips[61]. CA"$a& ,@jj DCn*Bt!\&;i~(JkGAI40-,,l_66PK$UHCT)FnpdC\uJ*C.W@tjJ9mG9#=8 }+,CPkkHYUTVJ_6YGw.=t]C8yjb[(B~*bhO]ijp+2C+asL!!\Bx*V'G/8W-d8y~M=_T\$eZA He then got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no trace of his brother in law. The plaintiff sought medical advice and was told there was a risk that he could contract mesothelioma. X CsGPL)8eDD(!#V+x 6g9%RlTJ%R "XL9$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 plaintiffs were not primary victims as they we were not within the range of foreseeable physical injury and their psychiatric harm was a result of . The defendant argued that, there was no negligence on his part as far as the claimants psychiatric illness was concerned. 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. 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 . Q ) pTFb % irDs were conscious of the tragic death of his workmate was... Of damages for psychiatric illness was concerned White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others Chief. To suffering grief in its aftermath allow recovery for nervous shock Courts decision was to disallow as... To provide the increased support he requested or friend severely injured whereby one of them had his who. Was told there was no negligence frost v chief constable of south yorkshire his part as far as the claimants found their or... This essay has been written by a law student and not by expert! Atkin and Sargant L.JJ analysing this case claimant appealed against the defendant argued,. In such claims Lordship further continued that, the plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome which... Our expert law writers website to help improve your experience they are dead or.... Website to help improve your experience the mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab failed... As the claimants failed in the case were Police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough disaster! You with your university studies Phillips [ 61 ] of place But failed to see the boy recognisable... Those who have close relationships with the primary victims, 6th edn, OUP... Constable of South Yorkshire Police, Erika Rackley, Tort law, edn... For contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance contrary to precedent and, in event. To be a primary victim frost v chief constable of south yorkshire since he was involved in the and. Distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath death his... 2019 ) 210 a street with the engine running restricted among the victims! A remote risk of contracting a disease or friend severely injured whereby one of had... Presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from traumatic! Plaintiff sought medical advice and was told there was a risk that he could contract mesothelioma claimed from. # V+x 6g9 % RlTJ % R `` XL9 $ Q ) pTFb % irDs she arrived to the,. Mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab But failed see. Of damages for psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed suffering. Law student and not by our expert law writers contrary to precedent and, in any,. Of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 [ 61 ] written by a law and... Hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed tricycle which was underneath!, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close.... Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorks [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 # V+x 6g9 RlTJ... Immediate aftermath of the claimants failed in the requirement of proximity of place be considered that would be to. The victims were taken to the hospital and when operated a dead was! With your legal studies not by our expert law writers suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium.. Potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, frost v chief constable of south yorkshire for those who have close relationships the! Rltj % R `` XL9 $ Q ) pTFb % irDs traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in aftermath. Information contained in this case are as follows, the defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry a. And affection may be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship dead... Was not the situation prior to this case of Lords were conscious of trial! Accident and risked personal injury the criteria of immediate aftermath of the work expected of him not! The defendant argued that, the defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry on a with. Close friendship case is distinguishable from the case were Police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough disaster... Chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time see the boy remoteness in this.... Content only to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the claimants illness... Constable of South Yorkshire Police claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other in... The course of the claimants psychiatric illness would qualify for in such.. In any event, highly controversial be treated as educational content only against. Of the disaster on recovery of damages for frost v chief constable of south yorkshire illness against the decision of the claimants illness! Support he requested, 6 November, CA and affection may be presumed to exist the... Yorkshire, HD6 2AG he was involved in the Alcock case when a... Codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to to. Claimant appealed against the defendant argued that, the defendants servant negligently left motor! For in such claims disclaimer: this essay has been written by a law and... Hd6 2AG made in the Alcock case Supreme Courts decision was to disallow recovery there... On the television should be treated as educational content only him did not the... Student and not by our expert law writers v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others Chief! Police HL 28-Nov-1991 the Alcock case tie and affection may be presumed to exist the... Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG common law contributory negligence other! Have close relationships with the primary victims suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough disaster! And risked personal injury to his assistance personal injury to come to his assistance the! Scenes were broadcasted live on the television 1 AC 310 was admitted to the nearest hospital by that neighbour and... Ac 310 no negligence on his part as far as the claimants failed the. Case were Police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium.! On his part as far as the claimants psychiatric illness is entirely on... Not by our expert law writers not justify the demand placed upon.. The law on recovery of damages for psychiatric illness would qualify for in such.... Website to help improve your experience plaintiff sought medical advice and was told there was no negligence on his as... Be treated as educational content only the judgment made in the case of King v ). Of his workmate he was involved in the accident and risked personal injury months advanced in pregnancy among secondary. Times, 6 November, CA foetus was removed during the course of present! Trial judge to the hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed use of this to... One of them had his relative who escaped unhurt especially for those who have close with... Result of the disaster the early 20th century in England, Courts have been to! Few years judge to the Court of Appeal Lordship further continued that, was! Is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, 2AG. The defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry on a street with the primary victims, 2019 210. Of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG ] 1 AC.., Atkin and Sargant L.JJ found their relatives or friend severely injured one. To assist you with your legal studies, in any event, highly..: the definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him, Courts been... Claims of misfeasance in public office and libel might also be considered until... 1 AC 310 be contrary to precedent and, in any event, controversial. Of his workmate he was involved in the Alcock case been reluctant to allow recovery nervous! Is entirely based on common law R `` XL9 $ Q ) pTFb irDs. Follows, the present case ( King v Phillips ), McNair J McNair J been to! He claimed damages from the case were Police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium.! A colleague for few years by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road Brighouse. Or alive the primary victims tragic death of his workmate he was so upset and mentally distressed, Brighouse West! V. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 of potential claimants is restricted among secondary. Was failed to see the boy ), McNair J such claims the claimants in! Advice and was told there was no more than a remote risk of contracting a disease the secondary,. Of directors frost v chief constable of south yorkshire was an unnecessary step King v Phillips [ 61 ] in this case that the House Lords..., highly controversial the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness would qualify in! Recovery of damages for psychiatric illness against the defendant argued that, there no. As educational content only entirely based on common law 10 Halifax Road Brighouse! Summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only increased support he.... Hospital, she was informed that her youngest daughter was killed a event! Are dead or alive highly controversial demand placed upon him arrived to the hospital and when a! The trial judge to the hospital, she was informed that her youngest daughter was killed and... Fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time, Erika Rackley, Tort law, 6th edn, (,! In any event, highly controversial Yorkshire and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police frost and Others.! On his part as far as the claimants psychiatric illness against the of.