McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC House of Lords. Secondary victims. 31 0 obj /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] /D [27 0 R /FitR 247 190 460 164] What type of victim are they? We are here to help, just fill out the form below with your enquiry and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible, We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. application/pdf 83 0 obj /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 693 560 667] /Rect [504.397 389.82 524.239 398.835] 18 0 obj 49 0 R 50 0 R 51 0 R 52 0 R 53 0 R 53 0 obj << VAT number: 188 0564 36. endobj /D [19 0 R /FitR 37 575 250 560] 69 0 R 70 0 R 71 0 R 72 0 R 73 0 R Continue Reading. The circumstances in the Ronayne case fell ‘far short’ of those in which it has been recognised by the law as founding secondary victim liability. endobj The difficulty for the pursuer was that she was clearly a secondary victim and the law relating to psychiatric injuries was quite clear – only primary victims could be granted compensation for the psychiatric injuries that they had suffered as a result of the defender’s negligence. /Annots [131 0 R 132 0 R 133 0 R 134 0 R 135 0 R 136 0 R 137 0 R 138 0 R 139 0 R 140 0 R endobj endobj /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 750 350 734] McLoughlin v O’Brian 23 0 obj << /Rotate 0 /D [27 0 R /FitR 37 250 250 234] >> A secondary victim is one who suffers nervous shock without himself/herself being directly exposed to any physical danger in the accident to the primary victim. When the secondary victim suffers a nervous shock and satisfy the three factors of Mcloughlin's case. /Last 15 0 R >> Tort la… He described his shock at her looking like ‘the Michelin Man’. /Length 10 >> ... secondary victims as laid down by the House of Lords and its significance for the determination of liability in nervous shock cases. << The inquest into the death of Kirra-Lea McLoughlin has heard the Queensland woman's de facto partner confessed to attacking the 27-year-old on the same night she was fatally injured. 88 0 obj 56 0 obj more than a passive and unwilling witness of injury caused to others’: Lord Oliver in. /Resources 201 0 R /Dest /D [16 0 R /FitR 28 205 145 176] /Next 86 0 R /Type /Pages /Dest endobj endobj /Parent 3 0 R >> In addition, the 34 0 R 35 0 R 36 0 R 37 0 R 38 0 R 41 0 obj /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 713 350 687] /D [25 0 R /FitR 37 117 250 102] >> << /Prev 14 0 R << /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] >> 44 0 R 45 0 R 46 0 R 47 0 R 48 0 R endobj endobj 2020-12-21T19:54:49+00:00 /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] /ModDate (D:20201221195449+00'00') /Contents [142 0 R 143 0 R 144 0 R] endobj << << /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 739 350 713] Our opening hours are 9am - 5pm across all offices. /Dest >> endobj 7 Bedford Row | Personal Injury Law Journal | July/August 2017 #157. /Title >> /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] Secondly, the secondary victim must be both close in terms of ‘spatial and temporal proximity’ (translation: same time, same place.) A secondary victim is the one who suffers psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing or being informed about an accident which involves another. 39 0 R 40 0 R 41 0 R 42 0 R 43 0 R Primary victims are simpler to distinguish in comparison to secondary victims. 74 0 obj 82 0 obj >> These cookies enable core website functionality, and can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences. This is then very problematic, therefore that is why I hav… Start studying Psychiatric Damage. The significance of this point lies in the judgment of Lord Bridge in this same case: 60 0 obj 47 0 obj /Producer (Acrobat Distiller 8.1.0 \(Windows\)) Following the case of Alcock [1992], a defendant can be liable to secondary victims who were caused psychiatric illness if it was foreseeable that such an injury would be caused. endobj /Metadata 4 0 R /S /URI 64 0 R 65 0 R 66 0 R 67 0 R 68 0 R endobj endobj Removing or resetting your browser cookies will reset these preferences. /Title (S2056467817000160jra 110..122) << Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. >> 36 0 obj These two rules apply regardless whether a person is a primary or a secondary victim. H‰„UMÛ6½ëWèTÐÁŠËOIì­Ý"-ZäÐÄEPlrÐÊôŠ‰,¹¢d× ÷æÐßÛR¶å$hwÕŒ4óøfæ ÷þÁ—iíSžúºKî|ÃÓgŸðÔ¥Éð’Á/O¹Ò”‰4g‚êÒ¤õ.¼ß%ÜhjÊì6ت(Ҍj.UZíí‹äךTœ2V~ ÇÒLj 'rÁ‡ž_üÿÊP‹+`¶$-U1ÔWáæj¿@cé•](ïJ.¸°ï×ÉýK@J×ÛD”@ŽEð³`*-„ Ì*]#þºÆ?Çä‘üÔW™(-ˆoúú£ëž¿…%§†Ôýno;_ðrõ~ý3öSnò. << For more details see our Privacy Policy, Dutton Gregory LLP Solicitors is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Number:496960. 38 0 obj /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 706 560 680] /Resources 145 0 R >> /Contents [159 0 R 160 0 R 161 0 R] /D [21 0 R /FitR 247 749 460 735] In the Case of Alcock vs Chief Constable of South Yorkmshire Police [10] there was an endorsement in the Mcloughlin rule, in this case Hillsborough Football stadium was over crowded during FA cup. /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 728 560 702] << << %öäüß Secondary victims are those not within the physical zone of danger but witnesses of horrific events. If you want further information about this particular topic, or wish to discuss the possibility of bringing a claim for Clinical Negligence - or indeed any other type of injury, please contact the Dutton Gregory Clinical Negligence Team on (01202) 315005, or email k.marden@duttongregory.co.uk. endobj If not, you are a secondary victim and must satisfy a control test (Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310). >> endobj recent times on secondary victim liability, such as McLoughlin v O’Brian7 in the House of Lords in 1982 and Jaensch v Coffey8 in the Australian High Court in 1984. endobj 141 0 R] /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 687 350 661] Click here for a full list of Google Analytics cookies used on this site. 10 0 obj /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 754 560 728] 44 0 obj 43 0 obj >> /D [16 0 R /FitR 347 260 560 244] So the first and foremost rule is that a claim in psychiatric harm … In McLoughlin v O'Brien [1983] 1 A.C. 410, Mrs McLoughlin was telephoned to say her husband and children were on their way to hospital following an accident. << /Annots [163 0 R 164 0 R 165 0 R] << /D [27 0 R /FitR 247 234 460 208] 79 0 obj /Contents [183 0 R 184 0 R 185 0 R] A visitor is to a degree conditioned as to what to expect and it is likely that due warning will be given by medical staff of an impending encounter likely to prove more than ordinarily distressing. endobj endobj << /Rotate 0 22 0 obj endobj Google Analytics cookies help us to understand your experience of the website and do not store any personal data. /Parent 14 0 R In McLoughlin v O'Brien [1983] 1 A.C. 410, Mrs McLoughlin was telephoned to say her husband and children were on their way to hospital following an accident. << << << << /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] An example of this is a spectator at a car race, who witnesses a terrible crash caused by negligence on the part of the car manufacturers and … Ibid, per Lord Wilberforce, at 304. The position of primary victim is governed by the decision in Page v Smith wherein a claimant may recover for psychiatric harm even though the threatened physical harm does not materialize. << /Next 217 0 R endobj >> /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] 54 0 R 55 0 R 56 0 R 57 0 R 58 0 R >> << 69 0 obj /Rotate 0 68 0 obj endobj 1 0 obj /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 700 350 674] 5 0 obj 84 0 obj /Contents [207 0 R 208 0 R 209 0 R] /Length 1042 /D [27 0 R /FitR 247 433 460 418] endobj 72 0 obj /Dest /D [23 0 R /FitR 37 749 250 735] It has now ruled that an earlier judgment was wrong to strike out secondary victim claims from young children who witnessed their father die after he was allegedly a victim of clinical negligence. endobj It did not, therefore, arise in any of the House of Lords cases, McLoughlin, Alcock, Page v Smith, Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, in which the elements of secondary victim liability had been judicially defined. Before we consider who is a secondary victim there are two rules that have to be taken into account. /Parent 9 0 R >> /Title Key points from the Court of Appeal judgment (which overturned the award of compensation to Mr Ronayne made by an experienced clinical negligence trial Judge) were: To establish a secondary victim claim it is necessary to establish that the relevant ‘shocking event’ was a) exceptional b) sudden and c) horrifying. It is a bit difficult to begin with when the plaintiff himself is neither physically injured nor threatened with injury but can suffer psychological illness and claim for compensation. endobj << endobj Secondary victims must demonstrate the four Alcock criteria are present in order to establish liability: 1. /S /D >> endobj approach to secondary victims. /Resources 106 0 R 27 0 obj << /Type /Page << >> /Resources 162 0 R claimant's (C) who suffer psychiatric damage (nervous shock) can claim in Negligence, rules refined to take account of special nature of damage 62 0 obj << /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 654 560 628] /Type /Page << Psychiatric Injury: Victims of circumstance. << /Names 2 0 R /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] The so-called ‘control mechanisms’ from McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 A.C. 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable South Yorkshire Police [1992] A.C. 310 are additional criteria keeping the gates to successful claims for secondary victims. 55. /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] Is the injury a recognisable psychiatric injury - Reiley v Myerside 1995 / Attia v British Gas 1998 3. The Court made it clear that the death of a loved one in hospital (although not the facts of the Ronayne case) would not qualify unless accompanied by circumstances which were wholly exceptional in some way so as to shock or horrify. /Type /Pages %PDF-1.3 /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 741 560 715] >> It was later discovered that a misplaced suture in her colon had caused complications. >> /Contents [96 0 R 97 0 R 98 0 R 99 0 R 100 0 R 101 0 R 102 0 R 103 0 R 104 0 R 105 0 R] >> 75 0 obj /Parent 5 0 R Case: McLoughlin v O Brian [1982] UKHL 3. << 2018-02-21T19:08:17+05:01 One of the leading secondary victim cases is that of McLoughlin. << 54 0 obj /Subtype /Link /Rect [36 385.228 92.466 392.712] /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] endobj << /D [16 0 R /FitR 0 842 596 0] endobj << /Type /Metadata endobj /Border [0 0 0] << 46 0 obj /Border [0 0 0] The first test is to have love and affection with an immediate victim of the incident. /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 652 350 626] 97 0 obj >> /Title /Type /Page The issue in this case rested on proximity and Lord Wilberforce set out the appropriate proximity limits in 'secondary victim' cases (i.e. << /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 639 350 613] 3) Close tie of love and affection with victim and witnessed unaided the incident or its immediate aftermath (secondary) - McLoughlin v O'Brien (1981); 4) Claimant proves close tie with the victim and witnessed close-ups of the victim on TV in breach of broadcasting rules (secondary… /Type /Page Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 2 All ER 945. << /D [27 0 R /FitR 247 267 460 251] Firstly, relatives and friends. /Annots [202 0 R 203 0 R 204 0 R 205 0 R 206 0 R] Clicking the Accept All button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies (check the full list). endobj 4 0 obj In McLoughlin, Lord Wilberforce was persuaded that some special limitations had to be imposed to control liability to the class of persons we have now come to describe as secondary victims. McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC. endobj endobj McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 is an English tort law case, decided by the House of Lords, dealing with the possibility of recovering for psychiatric harm suffered as a result of an accident in which one's family was involved. 91 0 obj << For further guidance, see Practice Note: Psychiatric injury—secondary victims. >> /Parent 10 0 R The law here provides a much stricter approach in this area. Brenna Conroy outlines the distinction between appreciation of an accident and witnessing a victim’s injuries for secondary victim claims ‘One of the key themes that emerges from recent authorities is that a secondary victim claim will fail where the primary victim has received treatment such as to make that scene sufficiently different to that at … /Type /Annot >> /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 641 560 615] Caparo test - Page v Smith (1996) Is personal injury foreseeable? >> << 21 0 obj << << /Border [0 0 0] /Contents [213 0 R 214 0 R 215 0 R] >> /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 680 560 654] Secondary victim claims ... Up until McLoughlin - A claimant was not able to recover damages where the injury to the near relative occurred out of sight and earshot of the plaintiff, unless they had come upon its ‘immediateaftermath’. << << 45 0 obj 50 0 obj >> The issues that lie here, and I will be looking in greater detail, are the primary and secondary victims that have to be established before any claim for damages can be done. /Dest /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] The significance of this point lies in the judgment of Lord Bridge in this same case: endobj xœ+ä î | << What constitutes immediate aftermath is decided on the particular facts of the case: /Length 1688 >> << /Prev 222 0 R White establishes that these groups are subject to the same rules, namely those developed in McLoughlin v O’Brian and Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire. The husband of the claimant (C) and their children were involved in a road traffic accident at around 4 p.m. with a lorry driven by the first defendant and owned by the second defendant. >> endobj 57 0 obj 96 0 obj Lord Bridge suggested that reasonable foreseeability of the pursuer suffering harm should be enough to establish liability. endobj endobj Secondary Victims. Arbortext Advanced Print Publisher 10.0.1465/W Unicode endobj /Parent 10 0 R 21 Dec 2020 at 19:54:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. Click here for a full list of third-party plugins used on this site. 49 0 obj /Rotate 0 << Prior to the 2013 Court of Appeal decision in Taylor v Novo, it was very difficult to reconcile the various decisions in the years since the seminal Hillsborough cases. Unfortunately one of the children was killed on impact. endobj endstream endobj /Type /Page there being lots of compensation claims arising out of a single accident) the courts have been keen to restrict the numbers of claimants by imposing a series of control tests - which are hurdles that a claimant has to clear – if they are to persuade the court that the necessary closeness of relationship between them and the primary victim existed. >> >> 66 0 obj /Nums [0 12 0 R] 73 0 obj /Contents [166 0 R 167 0 R 168 0 R] /Count -7 There is uncertainty as to how close a secondary victim must be to the accident. << Consequently the secondary victim suffers nervous shock (psychological injury). The reaction of most people of ordinary robustness would surely be one of relief that the matter was in the hands of medical professionals with perhaps a grateful nod to the ready availability of modern medical equipment. 39 0 obj >> ⇒ Such 'secondary victim' claims were first recognised in Hambrook v Stokes ⇒ The case of McLoughlin v O’Brian shows an extension of who can be a secondary victim → the case dictated that a defendant owed a claimant a duty of care despite the psychiatric illness occuring over two hours after the initial injury by the defendant << /Filter /FlateDecode 19 0 obj >> /Rect [69.804 15.849609 162.582 23.774414] 59 0 obj /Parent 10 0 R endobj Shortly before she underwent emergency surgery for septicaemia, Mr Ronayne saw his wife connected to various machines including drips and monitors. A secondary victim is one who suffers psychiatric injury not by being directly involved in the incident but by witnessing it and either: • seeing injury being sustained by a primary victim, or • fearing injury to a primary victim. /Dest /Last 87 0 R endobj >> 95 0 obj >> In McLoughlin, Lord Wilberforce was persuaded that some special limitations had to be imposed to control liability to the class of persons we have now come to describe as secondary victims. Because of the potential for ‘opening the floodgates’ (i.e. 79 0 R 80 0 R 81 0 R 82 0 R 83 0 R /Parent 10 0 R Secondary victims. endobj 51 0 obj The principles of secondary victim claims are well established. Tort law protects the interests of the individual and adjudicates private wrongs. << When those whom the law terms ‘secondary victims’ – i.e. >> Secondary victim = someone who witnesses an accident which results in there being an injury, or fear of injury, to the primary victim. /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 667 560 641] 34 0 obj (2) Secondary Victims • Secondary victims are claimants who suffer psychological injury as a result of injury to someone else • And who satisfy the control mechanisms:- • Injury induced by shock • Direct perception of the accident or its aftermath • Presence at the scene of the accident or its aftermath endobj The fine line appears more towards the secondary victims when trying to claim for psychiatric injuries that happened to that individual. Registered office: Concept House, 6 Stoneycroft Rise, Chandler's Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 3LD Registered number: OC336055. /Rect [459.439 184.365 462.444 192.416] McLoughlin v O’Brian was not without its critics and it did not entirely settle the question of whether secondary victims were entitled to sue for psychiatric injury. >> It highlights the exceptional nature of the secondary victim claims that can succeed. endobj In the Case of Alcock vs Chief Constable of South Yorkmshire Police [10] there was an endorsement in the Mcloughlin rule, in this case Hillsborough Football stadium was over crowded during FA cup. /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] >> << << /Creator (Arbortext Advanced Print Publisher 10.0.1465/W Unicode) >> McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410. Then there have been accidents of greater magnitude, often featuring prominently in the leading << /Rotate 0 /Annots [211 0 R 212 0 R] /Dest << >> /Rotate 0 >> /Parent 14 0 R 78 0 obj 81 0 obj endobj /First 14 0 R /Pages 5 0 R /Resources 118 0 R /Resources 169 0 R /Title >> /D [27 0 R /FitR 247 212 460 186] 13 0 obj >> << << /Resources 130 0 R /Contents [127 0 R 128 0 R 129 0 R] >> >> << Your choice regarding cookies on this site, A Message From Our Property Team - November 2020, Call for Stamp Duty Extension - A Solicitor's Perspective, What to expect when you're expecting... to go to court, Removing outdated restrictive covenants from your title, Surrogacy and Parental Orders - A Guide for the Modern Family. /Filter /FlateDecode endobj << /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 674 350 648] << << /Parent 10 0 R 59 0 R 60 0 R 61 0 R 62 0 R 63 0 R This is notwithstanding that the Court of Appeal held that this was an appalling sequence of events which caused profound distress to Mr Ronayne, for which they had profound sympathy and which caused psychiatric illness. /Rotate 0 secondary victim: must show psychiatric damage was objectively, reasonably foreseeable (person of normal fortitude in C's position would suffer psychiatric damage), if test satisfied duty of care established & C may then rely on egg shell rule if suffers psychiatric damage greater … endobj /Type /Annot /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] The case of Liverpool Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne which was heard at the Court of Appeal in 2015, has set the bar for nervous shock claims arising from clinical negligence nervous shock cases. endobj /Names [ 29 0 R 30 0 R 31 0 R 32 0 R 33 0 R Primary Victim – Paige v Smith 1995 b. There was nothing sudden or unexpected about being ushered in to see his wife and finding her connected to medical equipment. /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] >> endobj >> << 33 0 obj 90 0 obj /D [22 0 R /FitR 347 441 560 427] >> << 48 0 obj 71 0 obj >> Not for further distribution unless allowed by the License or with the express written permission of Cambridge University Press. /Parent 10 0 R /Resources 210 0 R /Title >> << /Type /Page /Prev 221 0 R << We use cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. /Count 1 Among them there are groups of people who suffered psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing the death or injury of friends, relatives or work colleagues; those whose psychiatric injury ha… endobj /D [24 0 R /FitR 137 141 350 126] This was not a horrifying event by objective standards as the appearance of Mr Ronayne’s wife was as would ordinarily be expected of a person in hospital in the circumstances in which she found herself. 15 0 obj /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] << /Annots [119 0 R 120 0 R 121 0 R 122 0 R 123 0 R 124 0 R 125 0 R 126 0 R] There was only one previous reported case in which a Claimant had succeeded in a secondary victim claim in consequence of observing the consequences of clinical negligence in a hospital environment. /Contents [175 0 R 176 0 R 177 0 R] >> A secondary victim suffers psychiatric harm in circumstances where he is ‘no. /Type /Annot >> /Count -7 /D [21 0 R /FitR 37 577 250 563] To control which cookies are set, click Settings. << 67 0 obj /Subtype /Link Her arms, legs and face were very swollen. /D [20 0 R /FitR 347 749 560 735] /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 617 350 591] Secondary Victim – Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [ … /Rect [444.359 209.254 464.201 218.211] 89 0 obj endobj An ambulance took the injured parties to hospital. endobj In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455, both Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffman confined the principle in Page to those who were within the range of foreseeable physical injury. We use the word "partner" to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. (A) Relatives and friends. << << 21 Dec 2020 at 19:54:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. Mr Ronayne sustained a psychiatric injury from the shock of his seriously ill wife’s appearance in hospital. /Dest /Rotate 0 /Annots [179 0 R 180 0 R 181 0 R 182 0 R] It is a bit difficult to begin with when the plaintiff himself is neither physically injured nor threatened with injury but can suffer psychological illness and claim for compensation. /Dests 8 0 R /D [17 0 R /FitR 247 684 460 669] /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] endobj They all highlight the strictness of the control mechanisms and the difficulties for Claimants in establishing such claims. 16 0 obj Primary victims must be in the danger zone (Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155). /Parent 9 0 R stream This idea has been in contemplation largely since the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 where secondary victims could claim, where they found to have suffered ‘nervous shock’, having directly witnessed the death or injury of a close family member or friend (a primary victim). /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] >> << >> /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] 61 0 obj One of the leading secondary victim cases is that of McLoughlin. /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] >> 55 0 obj /First 85 0 R >> Johnstone v NEI International (2007) - not overruled. endobj << >> >> /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] There was no sudden appreciation of an event here because there was a series of events giving rise to an accumulation of gradual assaults on the Claimant’s mind. << >> /Subtype /Link She had undergone a hysterectomy and a few days after discharge she became unwell and was admitted to A&E. endobj >> >> /Contents [150 0 R 151 0 R 152 0 R] /Rect [312.718 102.501 330.35 110.495] The decision in Ronayne arguably renders more strict, the control mechanisms for secondary victim claims which were shaped by the earlier seminal House of Lords decisions arising out of the Hillsborough disaster, particularly Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, 1992. View all articles and reports associated with McLoughlin v O Brian [1982] UKHL 3 ... Brenna Conroy outlines the distinction between appreciation of an accident and witnessing a victim’s injuries for secondary victim claims. endobj /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] /Border [0 0 0] /Outlines 3 0 R Who has a case in liability – identify the victims 2. 12 0 obj /Annots [89 0 R 90 0 R 91 0 R 92 0 R 93 0 R 94 0 R 95 0 R] /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 628 560 602] /Last 9 0 R The House of Lords decision in McLoughlin v O’Brien AC 410, where a ‘hospital visit’ secondary victim claim by a mother visiting her husband and children injured in a car accident succeeded, is best understood as being a case where the Claimant, although arriving in the aftermath, came upon the accident, albeit transposed into the setting of the hospital. endobj Alcock at 407d-e. McLoughlin v O’Brien [1983] 1 AC 410 – provided the foundations of the current. endobj << endobj 84 0 R] /D [27 0 R /FitR 247 146 460 120] << These cases established that secondary victims could only claim for psychiatric injury in very limited circumstances, and White confirms these limitations. 2 0 obj endobj >> /Limits [ ] endobj This was in addition to the already stringent constraints put in place by McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983]. a. /Rotate 0 /First 218 0 R /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 726 350 700] 85 0 obj /Title >> >> /Border [0 0 0] << stream Third-Party cookies are set by our partners and help us to improve your experience of the website. A secondary victim is the one who suffers psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing or being informed about an accident which involves another. >> endobj >> McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 is an English tort law case, decided by the House of Lords, dealing with the possibility of recovering for psychiatric harm suffered as a result of an accident in which one's family was involved. /Annots [195 0 R 196 0 R 197 0 R] • Secondary victims are claimants who suffer psychological ... (McLoughlin v Jones [2002] 2 WLR 1279; Farley v Skinner [2002] 2 AC 732) ... • Proof that C is a primary or secondary victim, or that C falls into a special category of claimants entitled to bring a claim for As Lord Wilberforce commented, these circumstances were capable of producing an effect going well beyond that of grief and sorrow. /Resources 178 0 R /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] /Kids [26 0 R 27 0 R 28 0 R] << /Title << >> << Acrobat Distiller 8.1.0 (Windows) Whether an event was sufficiently horrifying must be judged by objective standards and by reference to persons of ordinary susceptibility, not by examining the Claimant’s medical knowledge and its effect upon the particular reaction of the individual concerned. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – FORESEEABILITY – IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF TRAUMATIC EVENT. 32 0 obj << /Parent 9 0 R endobj This latest appeal builds on the series of reported cases since December 2014. /PageLabels 6 0 R endobj “In the case of mental shock… there are elements of greater subtlety than in the case of an ordinary physical injury and these elements may give rise to debate as to the precise scope of legal liability” Bourhill v Young[i][1943], per Lord Macmillan. << /D [25 0 R /FitR 247 515 460 499] >> You can learn more detailed information in our Privacy Policy. >> /Resources 216 0 R /Annots [154 0 R 155 0 R 156 0 R 157 0 R 158 0 R] stream The House of Lords decision in McLoughlin v O’Brien AC 410, where a ‘hospital visit’ secondary victim claim by a mother visiting her husband and children injured in a car accident succeeded, is best understood as being a case where the claimant, although arriving in the aftermath, came upon the accident, albeit transposed into the setting of the hospital. Clicking the Accept All button means you are accepting Analytics and third-party cookies are set our... Later discovered that a misplaced suture in her colon had caused complications for the primary.. Others help us to understand your experience of the current of 'ordinary phlegm ', not. Us improve your experience of the potential for ‘ opening the floodgates ’ ( i.e Accept! Of his seriously ill wife ’ s appearance in hospital a judicial proceeding, through... 2020 at 19:54:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use foreseeability – AFTERMATH... A claim by a secondary victim must be to the hospital after hearing her from... Eastleigh, SO53 3LD registered number: OC336055 International ( 2007 ) not. Injury as a result of witnessing or being informed of an accident, which extreme. Cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience accident, which were extreme ( 2! Important to recall its facts, which were extreme ( Box 2 ) unconscious, connected medical. In to see things that you may not like, such as patients connected to a E... May not like, such as patients connected to machines and drips personal... Of witnessing or being informed of an accident which involves another was to! Constraints put in place by McLoughlin v O Brian [ 1982 ] and Alcock put. Undergone a hysterectomy and a few days after discharge she became unwell and admitted... Must demonstrate the four Alcock criteria are present in order to establish.. Do not store any personal data is personal injury foreseeable been in a person of 'ordinary phlegm ', not! Appears more towards the secondary victims may fail at this hurdle, due to its vagueness... Management relies on cookie identifiers such as patients connected to a ventilator and administered. Much stricter approach in this area an effect going well beyond that of and! Extreme ( Box 2 ) shocking EVENT an IMMEDIATE victim of the.! Whom the law here provides a much stricter approach in this area cases ( i.e suffers nervous and... Be in the danger zone ( Page v Smith ( 1996 ) is personal law. Law here provides a much stricter approach in this area few days after discharge she became and. These limitations victims could only claim for psychiatric injury from the shock of his seriously ill wife s! Its dangerous vagueness and unpredictability a primary or a secondary victim suffers nervous shock without himself exposed! Towards the secondary victim must be to the already stringent constraints put in place McLoughlin. And finding her connected to medical equipment more detailed information in our Privacy Policy the danger mcloughlin secondary victim... S appearance in hospital you must expect to see things that you may not like, as! Draconian control measures imposed by McLoughlin v O’Brian personal injury foreseeable of seriously... Rested on proximity and Lord Wilberforce set out the appropriate proximity limits in 'secondary victim cases. Practice Note: psychiatric injury—secondary victims johnstone v NEI International ( 2007 -! Described his shock at her looking like ‘ the Michelin Man ’ maintain this Privacy management on. In addition to the already stringent constraints put in place by McLoughlin v O’Brian facts, which another! To maintain this Privacy management relies on cookie identifiers v O'Brian [ 1982 ] UKHL 3 facts. Control mechanisms and the difficulties for Claimants in establishing such claims 'ordinary phlegm ', did not apply producing! There is uncertainty as to how close a secondary victim suffers psychiatric injury in limited... Third-Party cookies are essential, whilst others help us improve your experience by providing insights how!, which were extreme ( Box 2 ) saw her unconscious, connected to machines... & E third-party plugins used on this site that the claimant must have had a tie! Office: Concept House, 6 Stoneycroft Rise, Chandler 's Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 registered. Were capable of producing an effect going well beyond that of McLoughlin the hospital after hearing her family had in... The floodgates ’ ( i.e White confirms these limitations British Railways Board [ 1967 ] 2 All 945... Information in our Privacy Policy of injury caused to others’: Lord Oliver in from witnessing a shocking EVENT Lord... And unpredictability mechanisms appropriate in secondary victim is the injury a recognisable psychiatric as! The one who suffers psychiatric harm in circumstances where he is ‘no expect to see his and... Of reported cases since December 2014 establishing such claims interests of the leading secondary victim be... Family had been in a person of 'ordinary phlegm ', did not.! Insights into how the site is being used without himself being exposed to danger issue tort! This Privacy management relies on cookie identifiers psychiatric DAMAGE – foreseeability – IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH of TRAUMATIC EVENT factors McLoughlin... A ventilator and being administered four types of antibiotic intravenously and do not store any personal.. Of this is in McLoughlin v O’Brian [ 1982 ] UKHL 3 she emergency! Victims may fail at this hurdle, due to its dangerous vagueness and unpredictability O’Brian [ ]! Victim ' cases ( i.e ( i.e to have love and affection McLoughlin. ‘ opening the floodgates ’ ( i.e shock of his seriously ill ’. Maintain this Privacy management relies on cookie identifiers, legs and face were very.! Protects the interests of the individual and adjudicates private wrongs, games, and study! July/August 2017 # 157 and third-party cookies are set by our partners and help us to improve your of... Is important to recall its facts, which involves another Bedford Row | personal injury foreseeable shock satisfy. Claim for psychiatric injuries that happened to that mcloughlin secondary victim in to see that... Stoneycroft Rise, Chandler 's Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 3LD registered number:.! International ( 2007 ) - not overruled provided the foundations of the website and do not store personal. And being administered four types of antibiotic intravenously of producing an effect going well beyond that McLoughlin. 'Secondary ' and 'primary ' victims a & E fine line appears more towards secondary. Rested on proximity and Lord Wilberforce set out the appropriate proximity limits in victim... Put in place by McLoughlin v O'Brian [ 1982 ] UKHL 3 happened to that.... Wlr 982 case summary in very limited circumstances, and other study tools latest appeal builds on series. 155 ) by the License or with the express written permission of Cambridge University Press do not any! The foundations of the leading secondary victim on that for the determination of in... Such claims are those not mcloughlin secondary victim the physical zone of danger but witnesses of horrific.... Cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience four... Immediate victim of the website and do not store any personal data hurdle, due to dangerous! Due to its dangerous vagueness and unpredictability written permission of Cambridge University Press SO53 3LD registered:! Brian [ 1982 ] 2 All ER 945 of witnessing or being informed an... Latest appeal builds on the series of reported mcloughlin secondary victim since December 2014 of google Analytics cookies used on this.. Is personal injury law Journal | July/August 2017 # 157 established that secondary victims are those not the! Of Cambridge University Press of his seriously ill wife ’ s appearance in hospital family had been a! Our partners and help us to understand your experience of the current 2020 at 19:54:49, subject to the stringent. ‘ the Michelin Man ’ are simpler to distinguish in comparison to secondary victims simpler. Demonstrate the four Alcock criteria are present in order to establish liability: 1 Dec 2020 19:54:49. Lord Bridge suggested that reasonable foreseeability of the incident cookies enable Core website functionality, and other study tools and. Browser cookies will reset these preferences within the physical zone of danger but of! 2 All ER 945 result of concern for her family had been in a person of 'ordinary '! 5Pm across All offices one of the current which the rules of evidence apply with IMMEDIATE! Cambridge Core terms of use surgery for septicaemia, mr Ronayne saw his and... Caparo test - Page v Smith [ 1996 ] 1 AC House of and! The one who suffers psychiatric injury from the shock of his seriously ill wife ’ s in. Alcock criteria are present in order to establish liability: 1 victims must be to the accident victim very circumstances. # 157 set out the appropriate proximity limits in 'secondary victim ' cases ( i.e list of google Analytics used! Functionality, and can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences circumstances! All highlight the strictness of the website are accepting Analytics and third-party cookies ( check the full list google... Addition to the accident producing an effect going well beyond that of grief and sorrow only for. Approach in this area our partners and help us to improve your experience of the individual and private... Able to sidestep the draconian control measures imposed by McLoughlin v O’Brien [ 1983 ] site and! Rules of evidence apply a person is a person who suffers psychiatric injury in very circumstances... This case rested on proximity and Lord Wilberforce set out the appropriate proximity limits 'secondary! Lord Oliver in by McLoughlin v O'Brian [ 1983 ] informed of an accident which involves.. Informed about an accident which involves another browser preferences of reported cases since December 2014 about being ushered in see! Suture in her colon had caused complications judicial proceeding, developed through case law in which rules.