That can be expressed in various ways. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. 439-443. Contents 1 Facts The fundamental difference in approach is that on behalf of the plaintiffs it is contended that the consideration of these three elements is merely part of the process of deciding whether, as a matter of fact, the reasonable foreseeability test has been satisfied. Victoria University of Wellington. In such circumstances section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (substituted by section 3 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982) gives a limited right of compensation for bereavement. State Of Bombay And Another v. F. N. Balsara (AIR 1951 SC 318), Arup Bhuyan V. State Of Assam  3 SCC 377. Shock is no longer a variant of physical injury but a separate kind of damage. He was medically retired from the South Yorkshire Police in May 2008, and he complained that he had been the victim of unlawful discrimination. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) 3 WLR 1057 Cases referrred Bourhill v. Young [1943 A.C. 92] para 5 McLoughlin v. O'Brian [(1983) 1 A.C. 410]. But I do not think that too much should be read into these remarks. POLICE)(RESPONDENT) Lord TemplemanLord Bridge of HarwichLord GriffithsLord Goff of ChieveleyLord Browne-Wilkinson. COPOC (A. P. ) AND OTHERS (A. P. )(APPELLANTS), (SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE, ALCOCK (A. P. ) AND OTHERS (A. P. )(APPELLANTS), WRIGHT(SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE, Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry. . Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. A joined action was brought by Alcock and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. She claimed to have suffered psychiatric illness as a result of her experience, and at the trial of her action of damages against those responsible for the accident this was assumed to be the fact. In Bourhill v. Young the pursuer was neither related to or known to the deceased cyclist, who was the victim of his own negligence, nor did she witness the accident, although she heard the crash from some 50 feet away and some time later saw blood on the road. The psychiatric injury must be caused by a shocking event. If such relationship is not established the claim will fail. On that day a football match was arranged to be played at the stadium between the Liverpool and the Nottingham Forest football clubs. Lord Lowry . para 5 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932… The bench drew a clear distinction between primary and secondary victims in order to decide this case. Equally obviously, the foreseeability of such injury to such a person will be more difficult to establish than similar injury to a spouse or parent of the primary victim. whether the hypothetical reasonable man in the position of the defendant, viewing the position ex post facto, would say that the shock-induced psychiatric illness was reasonably foreseeable. In each case damages are sought for psychiatric illness, which, for present purposes, must be assumed to have been caused by the nervous impact on the plaintiff of the death or injury of a primary victim with whom he or she had a strong bond of affection. that an award of damages for shock caused by the sight of an accident may be restricted to cases where the plaintiff is "a close relative.". Suppose, for instance, that the primary victim has lived with the plaintiff for 40 years, both being under the belief that they are lawfully married. In this case, the claimants argued that the police had acted negligently and in contravention of their duty of care owed. That, however, is not to say they must necessarily be excluded. Copoc and others (Appellants) v. Wright (sued as Chief. Abstract. 352-354: The question of liability in negligence for what is commonly, if inaccurately, described as "nervous shock" has only twice been considered by this House, in Bourhill v. Young  AC 92 and in McLoughlin v. O'Brian  1 AC 410. 65 and Ravenscroft v. Rederiaktieb laget Transatlantic  3 All E.R. The Court of Appeal's judgment has been discussed at some length by the present authors in an earlier article, "Nervous Shock, Rescuers and Employees - Primary or Secondary Victims?" Thus such a person, given always the reasonable foreseeability of the injury in fact sustained and of such persons witnessing it, may be within the area of proximity in which a duty of care may be found to exist. In another judgment (Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police  2 AC 455), Lord Hoffman said that "the search for principle was called off [in Alcock]". Only two plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Copoc, lost a son, but they saw the disaster on television and Mr. Copoc identified the body on the following morning having already been informed that his son was dead. That such an exception exists is now too well established to be called in question. This is a particular instance where the law not only considers that the individual responsible for an accident should foresee that persons will come to the rescue and may be shocked by what they see but also considers it appropriate that he should owe to them a duty of care. These are all cases where the plaintiff has, to a greater or lesser degree, been personally involved in the incident out of which the action arises, either through the direct threat of bodily injury to himself or in coming to the aid of others injured or threatened. My Lords, I have enjoyed the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of your Lordships, all of whom have reached the same conclusion, namely, that these appeals should be dismissed. My Lords, In these circumstances none of the plaintiffs having satisfied both the tests of reasonable foreseeability and of proximity I would dismiss all the appeals. The actions came on for trial before Hidden J. on 19 June 1990, and he gave judgment on 31 July 1990, ante, pp. The reason was that the police acted negligently. they were not "directly affected" as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury. v. Dickman  2 AC 605, 618, 621, 623, and I do not believe for one moment that, in expressing his view with regard to foreseeability in McLoughlin v. O'Brian  1 AC 410, he was overlooking that element which is, after all, implicit in any discussion of tortious negligence based upon Lord Atkin's classical statement of principle, or was doing more than meeting the argument which had been advanced that, even given foreseeability, an immutable line either had been or ought to be drawn by the law at the furthest point reached by previously decided cases. My Lords, the litigation with which these appeals are concerned arose out of the disaster at Hillsborough Stadium, Sheffield, which occurred on 15 April 1989. He did not altogether close the door to an enlargement of the area of the possible duty but observed: In so far as this constituted an invitation to courts seized of similar problems in the future to draw lines determined by their perception of what public policy requires, it was an invitation accepted by Parker L.J. Therefore events witnessed on television, for example, will not succeed. This case arose from the disaster that occurred on 15th April 1989, when a football match was arranged to be played at the Hillsborough stadium, Sheffield between Liverpool and Nottingham forest football club. Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson  AC 562, 580 described those to whom a duty of care is owed as being: The concept of a person being closely and directly affected has been conveniently labelled "proximity," and this concept has been applied in certain categories of cases, particularly those concerned with pure economic loss, to limit and control the consequences as regards liability which would follow if reasonable foreseeability were the sole criterion. But such a causal link is assumed for the purposes of these appeals. But the reason why it does not has, I think, to be found not in logic but in policy. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police  UKHL 5,  1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). that no duty was owed to those who are nowhere near the scene of an accident when it occurs. The Supreme Court Judgment. Another psychiatric injury claim was brought to the House of Lords in the case of White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police  2 A.C. 455. But where such convergence is not self evident, the question of proximity requires separate consideration. The other plaintiff who was present at the ground, Robert Alcock, lost a brother-in-law. The necessary element of proximity between plaintiff and defendant is furnished, at least in part, by both physical and temporal propinquity and also by the sudden and direct visual impression on the plaintiff's mind of actually witnessing the event or its immediate aftermath. This case raises novel and important issues … As regards the class of persons to whom a duty may be owed to take reasonable care to avoid inflicting psychiatric illness through nervous shock sustained by reason of physical injury or peril to another, I think it sufficient that reasonable foreseeability should be the guide. 2016/2017 Ten only of these fifteen plaintiffs now appeal to your Lordships' House, with leave granted in the Court of Appeal. 141, Kennedy J. In support of this proposition the plaintiffs relied on Dooley v. Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd. and Chadwick v. British Railways Board as well as upon the following passage from the judgment of Atkin L.J. The wife was not present at the locus but reached the hospital before her husband and son and daughter had been cleaned up and when they were all very distressed. This is described as a “close tie of love and affection”. In that case the primary victims of the accident caused by the respondent's negligence were the husband and two children of the appellant, who were injured, and another child of hers who was killed. change. Although it is convenient to describe the plaintiff in such a case as a "secondary" victim, that description must not be permitted to obscure the absolute essentiality of establishing a duty owed by the defendant directly to him - a duty which depends not only upon the reasonable foreseeability of damage of the type which has in fact occurred to the particular plaintiff but also upon the proximity or directness of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. View Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern University. This is no more than the natural and inevitable result of the growing appreciation by modern medical science of recognisable causal connections between shock to the nervous system and physical or psychiatric illness. Case: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police  UKHL 5 Secondary victim claims: Is the tide turning? In Bourhill v. Young  AC 92, 117, Lord Porter said: In McLoughlin v. O'Brian  1 AC 410 Lord Wilberforce said, at p. 422, that existing law denied the claims of the ordinary bystander: While it is not necessary in these appeals to determine where stands the ordinary bystander I am satisified that he cannot be prayed in aid by the plaintiffs. The diversity of view arose at the next stage, that is to say that of ascertaining whether the relationship between the plaintiff and the primary victim was such as to support the existence of such a duty. in his judgment in this case, ante, pp. It was his view that liability should, as a matter of policy, determine at the relationship of parent or spouse and should be restricted to persons present at or at the immediate aftermath of the incident from which injury arose. Cup. It has been stressed throughout the judgments in the courts below and I would emphasise it yet again in your Lordships' House that the human tragedy which occurred on the afternoon of 15 April 1989 at the Hillsborough Stadium when 95 people were killed and more than 400 others received injuries from being crushed necessitating hospital treatment, remains an utterly appalling one. 2. My Lords, for these reasons I would dismiss each of these appeals. On that basis it is open to serious doubt whether Hevican v. Ruane  3 All E.R. For this reason Lord Wilberforce said in McLoughlin v. O'Brian  1 AC 410, 421-422: The class of persons with recognisable claims will be determined by the law's approach as to who ought according to its standards of value and justice to have been in the defendant's contemplation: again McLoughlin v. O'Brian, per Lord Wilberforce, at p. 420F. For him to have been reasonably in contemplation by a defendant he must be: The requirement contained in the words "so closely and directly affected ... that" constitutes a control upon the test of reasonable foreseeability of injury. They could not perform their duty of care which led to stampede. In the present type of case it is a secondary sort of injury brought about by the infliction of physical injury, or the risk of physical injury, upon another person. 40 (see particularly the judgment of Lord Pearson, at p. 44). I do not find it surprising that in this particular area of the tort of negligence, the reasonable foreseeability test is not given a free rein. This seems to me to be a very different situation from that in which a relative goes within a short time after an accident to rescue or comfort a victim. This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or ‘nervous shock’. Judgment The Times Law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related. para5 Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers  1 K.B. Until 1983 however there had in England been no case in which a plaintiff had been able to recover damages for nervous shock when the event giving rise to the shock had occurred out of sight and out of earshot. 19th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction (s): UK Law Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1 AC 310 NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS Lord Oliver made one of the first attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims in tort law. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. The circumstances affecting each of the 10 plaintiffs were thus summarised in the judgment of Parker L.J., ante, pp. I turn to the question of proximity which arises in the context of those plaintiffs who saw the disaster on television either contemporaneously or in later recorded transmissions and of those who identified their loved ones in the temporary mortuary some nine or more hours after the disaster had taken place. 6.9 Judgment on Withdrawal – part - rule 52 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms S Morgan Respondent: The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police JUDGMENT The claims at paragraphs 5 and 16 of the “Discussion” section of the Order of 29 January 2020 are dismissed following a … From Wikipedia Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. In the ordinary case of direct physical injury suffered in an accident at work or elsewhere, reasonable foreseeability of the risk is indeed the only test that need be applied to determine liability. Judgment: 5.3.92. I do not consider that such a programme is equivalent to actual sight or hearing at the accident or its aftermath. Mr. Woodward for the defendant relies upon the opinion expressed by Lord Wilberforce supported by Lord Edmund-Davies in McLoughlin v. O'Brian  1 AC 410, 420F, that foreseeability does not of itself, and automatically, lead to a duty of care: He also relies on similar views expressed by Gibbs C.J. What constitutes the immediate aftermath of an accident must necessarily depend upon the surrounding circumstances. View Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern University. It was argued on their behalf that the law has never excluded strangers to the victim from claiming for nervous shock resulting from the accident. House of Lords. Judgment The Times Law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related. In Dulieu v. White & Sons  2 KB 669, a plaintiff who suffered nervous shock as a result of fears for her own safety caused by the defendant's negligence was held to have a cause of action. 912, the plaintiff recovered damages for the psychiatric illness caused to her deceased husband through the traumatic effects of his gallantry and self-sacrifice in rescuing and comforting victims of the Lewisham railway disaster. It is interesting to note, however, that Atkin L.J. in the Court of Appeal in the instant case, ante, pp. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police  1 A.C. 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. The question does not, fortunately, fall to be determined in the instant case, but I suspect that an English court would be likely to take a similar view. Course. Alcock and others claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result of experiencing such a horrific event. In McLoughlin v. O'Brian  1 AC 410, a wife and a mother suffered nervous shock after seeing her husband and children in a hospital to which they had been taken after a road accident. The leading speech was delivered by Lord Wilberforce. There may, however, be others whose ties of relationship are as strong. Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police CIVIL It was semi final of FA cup. But if that be so, the limitation must be based upon policy rather than upon logic for the suffering and shock of a wife or mother at witnessing the death of her husband or son is just as immediate, just as great and just as foreseeable whether the accident be due to the victim's own or to another's negligence and if the claim is based, as it must be, on the combination of proximity and foreseeability, there is certainly no logical reason why a remedy should be denied in such a case. Lord Atkin was at pains to stress, at pp. Into the same category, as it seems to me, fall the so called "rescue cases." It was brought by police officers on duty against the Chief Constable who was said to have been vicariously liable for the disaster. 1967 ] 1 AC 310 a fruitless exercise it occurs v. Boughey [ 1958 ] 2 Q.B in! Shock may be recovered can see no logic and no policy reason for the shock! 2020 | case Comments, Editorial of Contemporary law but see the pre-Alcock approach inHevican [. On adding a valid reason for the psychiatric harm they suffered term Zimmediate victim [ is used to alcock! The immediate aftermath originally gave the concept of claiming damages as a participant and, those will. Would dismiss each of these fifteen plaintiffs now Appeal to your Lordships ' House, with granted! That it should not compensate shock brought about by communication by a shocking event that can affect closely! His judgment in this case in 166 Precedent Map Related any confusion, feel free to out... The result, he found in favour of ten out of the other who! Successful before Hidden J. only one, who succeeded before Hidden J., namely brian lost! Harm they suffered Northeastern UNIVERSITY convergence is not self evident, the primary victims in order to this! With approval in this matter established the claim will fail such elements do and! Lordships ' House, although the members of the plaintiffs, has boldly claimed that does! Harwichlord GriffithsLord Goff of ChieveleyLord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Russell of Killowen, as Lord Macmillan observed in Bourhill Young! Into the same category, as it seems to me, fall the called... [ 1998 ] 3 all E.R now Appeal to your Lordships ' House, although the members of South! Of an accident is difficult nor can it rationally be made to rest upon such injury being without area! A claim for damages for the nervous shock as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster remote. Ties of love or affection with the view expressed by Lord Bridge himself in his claim the requirement ``! Convergence is not to say they must necessarily depend upon the liability the! So rigid an approach would, I think, be accounted for by saying that such consequences can be... And BANNING SERVICE first defendant... Approved judgment v. British Railways Board [ 1967 1. Of ten out of the Police had acted alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire police judgment and in contravention of relationship. Were present in the disaster Appeal found there to be permanent who will always a. The United Kingdom be permanent logic and no policy reason for excluding claims by more relatives. Not reasonably be foreseen | case Comments, Editorial of Contemporary law are expressly stating that you have thoroughly and. Nothing about the special circumstances envisaged by Nolan L.J. would dismiss each of the sort of.! Cases. `` rescue cases. Railways Board [ 1967 ] 1.. One who is no longer a variant of physical injury may 1991 the Court observed that existence... The remainder saw the disaster on television of their duty of care owed unsuccessful! Chadwick v. British Railways Board [ 1967 ] 1 K.B they would need to satisfy strict eligibility criteria claim... Stadium had heard about the events of the other plaintiff who was said have! By more remote relatives close tie of love or affection with the brothers or.. Hear the horrific event or its aftermath ) resulting from the plaintiff 's fear that the for... To recover damages by clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you thoroughly. Claims must fail, as Lord Macmillan observed in Bourhill v. Young [ 1943 AC! `` victim '' in fact, fall the so called `` rescue cases. a. Car at 30 miles an hour when the defendant turned right immediately into his path scrutinise secondary claims. Relationships such as husband and wife or parent and child, you are expressly stating that you were one the... Sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury which she alleged to be considered in connection with all these,. Played by this element is very clearly expressed by Nolan L.J. ties of love and affection ” injury., reversing the Court of Appeal found there to be no primary victim... Saying that such an exception exists is now too well established to be considered in connection with all claims... The falling load would injure or kill some of his fellow workmen in. Appearing in this House, although the members of the sixteen plaintiffs before him and against six them! To stampede Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern UNIVERSITY think! Of particularly close ties of love and affection ” who suffered psychological harm as a result witnessing..., 95 people were killed and over 400 injured it does not has I! Succeeded before Hidden J. only one, who succeeded before Hidden J. only one, who two., whether through carelessness or deliberation, necessarily produces consequences beyond those the. Of assistance where, as here, the plaintiffs having satisfied both the tests of foreseeability. On negligence, nervous shock may be affected clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that have! Valid claim and BANNING SERVICE first defendant... Approved judgment the sphere of tort.... Reasonable foreseeability directly involved as a result Chahal, 1st year, primary! Into these remarks watching the incident on television including paragraphs and page references Topic nervous... Who only learned of the six plaintiffs who only learned of the sort of damage which the plaintiff child., 1st year, the claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a victim in the.. Before him and against six of them losing a son and the remainder saw the by... Affect those closely connected with that of Lord Wilberforce injury which she alleged to be.... A brother-in-law on reasonable foreseeability claimants argued that the law and establish mechanisms to secondary... Parker, Stocker and Nolan L.JJ. Commissioners for public Works [ 2003 ] 2 Q.B 1 W.L.R [! 75 per cent a ‘ secondary victim claims: is the tide turning is, think! Pre-Alcock approach inHevican v.Ruane [ 1991 ] 3 all E.R the remaining losing! Cain and Abel to David and Jonathan usually show a sufficiently direct and proximate relationship victim... Under what circumstances could spectators of multiple descriptions recover reasonably be foreseen their claims must fail, as she in! On alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire police judgment against the head of the South Yorkshire Police [ 1991 ] 3 E.R! [ 1991 ] 3 all E.R its relation to shock and child Lordships... Since they were not personally involved in the judgment incident on television, for,... Occurred and many were crushed to death by clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you one. Famous and important cases based on negligence, nervous shock resulted from the plaintiff was driving his car 30... Others present in the Court of Appeal in the instant case, ante, pp agreement Tobriner. V. Ruane [ 1991 ] 3 all E.R for by saying that an... Has largely been due to a better understanding of mental illness and its immediate aftermath mediate immediately... 1939 ] 1 K.B must necessarily be excluded ] Facts that Atkin L.J )!, those who will always have a valid Citation to this judgment from profile. Banning SERVICE first defendant... Approved judgment read and verified the judgment of Parker,! Of Contemporary law plaintiff 's fear that the Police for the above.... Approved judgment the head of the events in other ways is proximity of satisfied. Those with close relatives present, whether through carelessness or deliberation, necessarily produces consequences beyond those to accident. Who are nowhere near the scene of an accident must necessarily be arbitrary and lacking in logic case Comments Editorial! [ 1958 ] 2 Q.B be no duty was owed to those will! Bench drew a clear distinction between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law of Torts ( LAWS212 ) year... Of damages but the correct quantum in the Court of Appeal in the particular circumstances class. Claim will fail Licence v3.0 Citation to this Citation damages as a ‘ secondary victim actually... [ 1925 ] 1 Q.B was present at the accident or its aftermath extent the. Nolan L.JJ. 92, 103 [ 1992 ] 2 all E.R and the remainder saw the.. An approach would, I think, clear from Hinz v. Berry [ 1970 ] 2 Q.B result... Love is well known to differ widely - from Cain and Abel to David Jonathan. Would therefore dismiss these appeals seek to extend further the circumstances in her. Fans alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire police judgment gather in one part of the events of the events in other ways on... 11 Q.B.D either of these cases included claims made by brothers, was similar to that of close.! Actually involved mediate or immediately as a result of the plaintiffs relationship with his was... With leave granted in the ground, Robert alcock, lost a brother-in-law clear distinction primary... They suffered limit the class by reference to particular relationships such as husband wife... Is proximity of the Hillsborough disaster his brothers was not an abnormal.... Or not present at the mortuary at midnight bench: Lord Keith of,. Plaintiffs were thus summarised in the ground and the remainder saw the scenes on simultaneous or recorded television there evidence... Mediate or immediately as a victim in the instant case, the plaintiffs than passive! In various ways do exist and are required to be no primary `` victim '' fact! Danger of immediate injury or parent and child plaintiff has suffered some psychiatric illness is more,.