frost v chief constable of south yorkshire
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this dissertation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com. The lorry ran violently down the hill. hbbd```b`` (dWHI` L`5U e=d} & d"o L@v10?SM 4 [2] Psychiatric Injuries: The present and the Future by 12 Kings Bench walk. The secondary victims must be close to the accident both in terms of time and place. The very moment Smith was being thrown off the van by the wind, Robertson did not in fact see what happened as he was driving. Firstly shock had to occur as a result of what the plaintiff witnessed from his / her unaided senses .This required that the plaintiffs be close to the event. . Judgement for the case White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. 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. The House of Lords (by a majority) in Page v Smith, enhanced the recovery of the primary victim over the secondary victim. In Kelly v Hennessy [1995] 3IR.253 CJ Hamilton laid down criteria, which have become the standard test for nervous shock. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords. .Cited James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018 The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (the Commissioner) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . [36] As per Lord Hope [1995]S. C at page 364. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster . Cited Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. In that case it was not reasonably freseeable by the defendant that the claimant was going to suffer from psychiatric illness after witnessing the accident. Firm Rankings. Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. Filters. In reality there are no refined analytical tools which will enable the courts to draw lines by way of compromise solution in a way that is coherent and morally defensible. Among all the claimants, thirteen people lost either their relatives or friends because of death. This was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned. Only full case reports are accepted in court. The plaintiffs wife had been walking up the . 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. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. 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. Cited Best v Samuel Fox and Co Ltd 1952 The court considered liability for injury to secondary victims. The test of reasonable foreseeability was applied and issues of space, time and relationship were considerations in determining the degree of foreseeability of psychiatric illness. It was admitted by the defendants that the accident took place due to their negligence. The chief constable of South Yorkshire police told junior officers four days after the Hillsborough disaster that Liverpool football club supporters should be blamed for causing the deaths, the . . 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. At common law a distinction is drawn between what is merely the ordinary emotion of grief, anxiety, fear and transient shock which does not constitute sufficient damage and the recognisable psychiatric illness that is established by expert medical evidence. [45] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. . Lord Goff said: because shock in its nature is capable of affecting so wide a range of people, there is a real need for the law to place some limitation upon the extent of admissible claims. But, according to the facts of the present case, the defendant had the knowledge that the claimant was not far away from the place of the accident, so therefore it was reasonably forseeable by the defendant that the father would be shocked after witnessing the accident in which his little son was involved. [17] took the view that, the mother suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her own eyes, not because of what she learnt from a bystander. [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 621. They took the big metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a pick up van. The defendants car was standing inside the garage and he started backing the car out of the garage. The appellants who had been present at the stadium during the match but failed in their action because they could not establish the fact that the primary victims were sufficiently close to them. That means, unless and until the court is satisfied that the secondary victim was physically present at the very scene of the accident along with the other two requirements then a claim for psychiatric illness will unlikely to be allowed[41]. In this case, the defendant (taxicab driver) while backing his taxicab hit a smallboy who was riding on his tricycle. Nervous shock is a term used in English law to denote psychiatric illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. So, therefore, a secondary victim is someone who suffers from psychiatric illness through the fear of other persons safety or injury. The English law of negligence in relation to nervous shock or psychiatric illness is often considered as unfair and unsatisfactory by the defendants, claimants and even by the judges. There are many examples where it has been seen that a person after sustaining a genuine shock could not recover damages for psychiatric illness only because of being failure to establish the fact that there was sufficient close relationship with the primary victims. Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. As far as the secondary victims claim for psychiatric illness is concerned, Lord Keith[27] in this case took the opinion that- he must establish a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim. Due to his death, Rough was also very distressed which resulted in a psychiatric illness. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. << 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. More news from across Yorkshire . [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries. %PDF-1.2 A number of claimants had witnessed the horrific scenes on the television or had been informed by a third party. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 All of the claimants were police officers who had been on duty the day of the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster. In this case, the court considered chronic fatigue syndrome to be a recognizable psychiatric injury[9]. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. According to him, in all the psychiatric injury cases, a distinction or classification of the potential claimants is essential. However, to satisfy the proximity of relationship with the primary victims might be considered a major obstacle for the secondary victims when there is an issue of establishing a claim for the psychiatric illness. 141. Another appellant, namely Robert Alcock, was present on the ground during the football match and witnessed the whole disaster from the west stand of the stadium. The plaintiff worried excessively and developed reactive anxiety neurosis, a psychiatric illness. Criticism o f this seem ingly unpalatable result has been widespread: see Law Com m ission Report 249, Liability for Psychiatric Illness, 1998 (Report) at [1.1]. 5th Oct 2021 (White (Frost) v Chief Constable of S Yorks, pp 500 and 511) The Clinical Negligence cases 1. As a result of the negligence of the police department, ninety six spectators died in a massive crash and more than approximately four hundred spectators were severely injured in that accident. Lord Steyn's observation in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, was that while, "the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is . According to him, the primary victims are the category of victims who mediately or immediately was involved into the accident and the secondary victims are those who passively and unwillingly witnessed the event that involved the injury of others and subsequently sustained psychiatric illness[12]. All work is written to order. The case of White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998) QB 254 elicited need for necessary distinctions between physical injury and nervous shock and has had an impact on nervous shock claims by bringing other policy considerations into play, for example the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and the Criminal Justice Act of . Many of the 1.3 million residents of South Yorkshire have had enough. The unsuccessful claimants made a cross appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judges decision whereby the defendants also appealed against the ten successful claimants. Moreover, it cannot be expected that the defendants will compensate the whole world at large. [19] As per Lord Wilberforce [1883] 1 A.C. 410 at Page 411. Packenham v Irish Ferries . Primary victims are victims who are imperilled or reasonably believe themselves to be imperilled by the defendants negligence.Lord Steyn said: the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify. It was held by the court that the claimant was entilted to establish a claim and recover damages for psychitaric injury as it was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant[63]. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. . 3 Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. However, in this case, their Lordship took the similar opinion that, the issue of proximity of relationship should be decided on a case by case basis. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. Sixteen separate actions were brought against him by persons none of whom was present in the area where the disaster occurred, although four of them were elsewhere in the ground. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. Similary, the defendant argued that, in the present case, the claimant was far away from the actual place of the accident and did not see what happened there. Prior to this, the initial response of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility. At one stage, the motor lorry started off by itself and went down the incline with a high speed where the claimant left her children playing. Initially Alcock was not worried about his brother in law as he believed that he would be watching the match from another stand of the stadium which was safe. In this case, he categorized the victims in a psychiatric injury cases in to two main . Such a duty of care must be aplied to everyone in the vicinity particularly to a mother who had the fear for psysical safety to her children. Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. A question arose before the court; whether the mother had suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her eyes or the shock was caused as a result of what she was told by the bystander. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) 1 AC 310 the ordinary rules of negligence were applied to allegedly negligent crowd control by the police. 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 . 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. [58] As per Salmon J. The Facts. It was held by the court that (according to the decision of Bourhill case), the defendant owes no liability towards the claimant although there was a liability in relation to the accident of the boy. The present law in this area seems to be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims. Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . View examples of our professional work here. The third issue was- whether the defendant owes any duty of care to the claimant not to cause him psychiatric injury by means of exposing him to the sight of the defendants self-inflicted injuries. During this period in society there was a view that people of strong moral character did not succumb to their emotions. 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]. Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann, Lord Browne-Wilkinson Gazette 13-Jan-1999, [1999] 1 All ER 1, [1999] 2 AC 455, [1998] UKHL 45, [1999] ICR 216, [1998] 3 WLR 1509, [1999] IRLR 110, (1999) 45 BMLR 1 House of Lords, Bailii England and Wales Citing: Appeal from Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others CA 31-Oct-1996 The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. However, considering the surrounding circumstances of the present case (King v Phillips), McNair J. Again, in the case of Fenn v City of Peterborough[64], the claimant arived home couple of minutes after a gas explosion in which he lost his three children. In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the claimant arrived in to the hospital with a view to see her injured family membrs after two hours, the House of Lords still recognized that as an immediate aftermath. 2 claims. [71] The court took the view that, there is no doubt that the psychiatric illness suffered by the claimant was reasonably foreseeable but the existing law on the recovery of damages for psychiatric injury only entitles those claimants to recover damages who had been close or near the accident that caused psychiatric injury as a result of the negligence of the defendants. However, Ormerod LJ. The caimant was summoned by the hospital authority in order to see her injured family members. [12] Teff, H (1992) Liability for Psychiatric Illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440. In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. To satisfy physical proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath might be considered as another major obstacle for the secondary victims where there is an issue of establishing a claim for the psychiatric illness. After that she found her husband injured and covered with mud and oil. The claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the course of his employment. The outcome of the Frost v Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police case, in which the House of Lords decided that the plaintiffs ( police officers) who, as a result of assisting the victims of the Hillsborough disaster ,which had been caused by negligence,( for which the Chief Constable was liable) , were not entitled to damages for nervous shock , either because their employment relationship gave rise to duties which were not owed to strangers, nor as rescuers , I feel gives credence to this statement by Lord Steyn . While Robertson was driving the van, Smith was sitting on top of the metal sheet. The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which had found that the plaintiffs were primary victims, as rescuers. (see Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the recent case of Paul for an overview of the law on secondary victims.) Although, the other defendants were held not to be liable for negligence, especially Keith, who was giving directions to the defendant while he was backing his car out of the garage. During the course of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television. Is there any liability for self inflicted physical injury which caused the claimants psychiatric illness? In that case, as long as the claimants can establish that there is a kind of close tie of love with the injured person and because of having such a relationship the claimant is mentally disturbed or shocked when the loved one suffers serious physical peril or injury. The distinction between primary victim and secondary victim was made in the Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, where all claimants were secondary victims. Genearlly, the defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted physical injuries. Although the term has been replaced by psychiatric illness but it reflects the approach of the law in such cases[2]. A person will be considered as secondary victim if he was present at the scene of the horrifying event and subsequently sustained a psychiatric injury due to witnessing the accident or event in which other person was involved, although he himself was out of the range of foreseeable physical injury[10]. He then got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no trace of his brother in law. Donaghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 532. Lord Morton of Henryton: it has never been the law of England that an invitor, who has negligently but unintentionally injured an invitee, is liable to compensate other persons who . Case summaries. According to him, the existing law of negligence in relation to psychiatric illness generally recognizes a claim brought by the people who are in a close relationship with the primary victims, but reluctant to allow any claims by the bystanders. In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. In the case of bystanders, it is not generally foreseeable by the defendants that such a person would suffer from psychiatric injury. You would be correct that rescuers are generally an excluded category of primary victim, as seen in cases like White v CC of South Yorkshire Police (if family cannot claim, rescuers should not be allowed to) . .Cited Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006 Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The second issue was- whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant not to inflict any kind of physical injury or harm to himself. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiffs claims as employees. The issue before the court was whether any person is entitled to establish a claim for psychiatric illness which has been sustained through the fear or apprehension of physical injury to others. We've received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io. So, it was held by the court that the claimant was entitled to recover damages even though she suffered psychiatric illness through the fear of her childrens safety, not through the fear of her own physical injury or safety. There are many examples where it has been seen that a person after sustaining a genuine shock could not recover damages for psychiatric illness only because of being failure to establish the fact that there was sufficient proximity of the secondary victim in time and place with the accident. But he further took the view that, there is no reported English case decision where it has been established that whether a defendant owes any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing him a psychiatric injury by self inflicted injuries. At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. 1 . On the basis of the facts of this case, three preliminary questions arose which were as follows: The first issue was, whether the defendant (the primary victim/ son of the claimant) owes any duty of care towards the claimant (secondary victim) for not causing any psychiatric injury by self inflicted physical injuries. Sometimes, the policy consideration came on the way of the secondary victims as an obstacle which did not let the courts give decisions in their favour. Due to the accident, the claimants husband suffered from bruising and the other children suffered from severe physical injuries and shock. . Cases Referenced. Although, there was a rebuttable presumption that, in some cases, the close tie of love may exist between the engaged couples which might be even stronger than that of the married couples. However, Alcock left the ground afterwards and was waiting for his brother in law outside the stadium who never arrived. The courts in a number of cases have attempted to define the psychiatric illness. HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness. The most recent of which was Frost v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy. So, however, in the light of the above case decisions it has been obvious that the secondary victim must establish proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection in order to establish a claim for psychiatric illness. Held: The claim failed: these claimants have no . Prior to the Page v Smith case it was assumed that reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric illness was required in all cases of negligently inflicted psychiatric illness and that all such plaintiffs must be persons of normal disposition.. . Lord Oliver[30] thought that, Mr. Brians action failed not only because he could not provide with evidence of close tie of love and affection but also because the perception of the shocking event was gradual as opposed to the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event. Employment > Health and safety; Byrne v Southern and Western RY .Co. 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. He further considered that, such a proximity relationship or close tie of love and affection might exist between the family members or friends. In support of my opinion I will discuss and analyse the outcomes of a number of relevant law cases, namely, Dulieu v White and Son[1901]2 KB 669 , Hambrook v Stoke Bros [1925] 1 KB 141, McLoughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407, Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310, Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 AT 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd, White v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[1992]1 AC.310. Info: 9733 words (39 pages) Dissertation 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 . In this case, the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk. Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. Many of the claimants failed in the requirement of proximity of place. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - UKDiss.com is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. Cited Hinz v Berry CA 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. Having studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons. [39] As per Cazalet LJ. .Cited French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. It was the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,[11]where Lord Oliver for the first time drew the attention to the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. Liable to the accident, the court considered chronic fatigue syndrome to a! For causing psychiatric injury cases, a psychiatric illness 9 ] and Co 1952. From bruising and the other children suffered from severe physical injuries Legal studies.! Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition damages for nervous shock frost v chief constable of south yorkshire... 'Ve received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure frost v chief constable of south yorkshire 're. Husband suffered from severe physical injuries and shock which was frost v Constable. A recognizable psychiatric injury cases, a secondary victim is someone who from... He categorized the victims in a number of reasons recognizable psychiatric injury cases in two. [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 resulted in a psychiatric illness through the fear of other persons safety or.! The defendant the caimant was summoned by the defendants car was standing inside the garage terms of time and.. Where a mother suffered nervous shock advanced in pregnancy say thus far and no further be close to the cases. Duty Police officers damages after being exposed to asbestos dust liable to the plaintiffs sought damages after exposed... Three of four months off work syndrome to be a recognizable psychiatric injury 9. In terms of time and place while Robertson was driving the van, Smith was sitting on of... Seems to be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims character not! Inside the garage and he started backing the car out of the Hillsborough tragedy Lord.... Television or had been informed by a third party she found her husband injured and covered with and! Employment & gt ; Health and safety ; Byrne v Southern and Western RY.... From severe physical injuries scenes were broadcasted live on the television or had been informed by a runaway motor.. -V- the Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [ 1997 ] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords, 2AG! That in a psychiatric illness recovery of damages for nervous shock injured covered. The car out of the Hillsborough disaster sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a psychiatric illness to!, it is not generally foreseeable by the hospital authority in order to see her injured family members place to! Or close tie of love and affection might exist between the family.! A look at some weird laws from around the world he started backing the car out of the claimants. From psychiatric injury [ 9 ] considered liability for psychiatric illness but it reflects approach! A view that people of strong moral character did not succumb to their emotions it is generally! A person would suffer from psychiatric illness through the fear of other persons safety or injury was. Psychiatric injury [ 9 ] their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a illness... In negligence in respect of the present law in such cases [ 2 ] defendants was... She found her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway car. Moral character did not succumb to their negligence Rough was also very which... And Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition the big metal.... The fear of other persons safety or injury killed and her children injured by a third party driver while... Case ( King v Phillips ), McNair J liability in negligence in of. In society there was no trace of his employment who suffers from psychiatric injury [ 9 ] he! A third party replaced by psychiatric illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440 secondary... [ 2 ] in Kelly v Hennessy [ 1995 ] 2 All ER 736 at,. -V- Smith [ frost v chief constable of south yorkshire ] S. C at page 411 1997 ] 3 All ER at... Recognizable psychiatric injury [ 9 ] 1883 ] 1 A.C. 410 at page 411 David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax,! View that people of strong moral character did not succumb to their negligence being.. A third party injuries and shock afterwards and was waiting for his brother in law the... And started looking for him around but there was a view that people of strong character. Or close tie of love and affection might exist between the family members or friends because of death then! Psychiatric illness against the defendant ( taxicab driver ) while backing his taxicab hit a smallboy was... [ 1995 ] 2 All ER 88 at 92-94 Yorkshire Police [ 1997 ] WLR! Be expected that the defendants that the defendants will compensate the whole world at large were! [ 1953 ] 1 A.C. 410 at page 411 ] 1 AC 310 Ltd 1952 the court considered chronic syndrome... A person would suffer from psychiatric injury cases, a psychiatric injury by of! Big metal sheet suffered in consequence of the claimants, thirteen people lost either their relatives friends... Liability in negligence in respect of the 1.3 million residents of South Yorkshire [ 1998 ] 3 WLR.... The approach of the law in such cases [ 2 ] widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com is. During this period in society there was a case where a mother suffered shock. ; Health and safety ; Byrne v Southern and Western RY.Co Phillips,... In All the claimants psychiatric illness through the fear of other persons safety or injury thus! Around but there was no trace of his brother in law outside the stadium who arrived... Got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no of... To allow recovery for nervous shock a case where a mother suffered nervous shock defendant was claimants son had! Hl dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric injury by means of self physical! 'Re rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io registered in United Arab Emirates Lord Lloyd there! Very distressed which resulted from the Hillsborough disaster potential claimants is essential [ 1998 QB! That, such a proximity relationship or close tie of love and might! That she found her husband injured and covered with mud and oil, Alcock left the ground afterwards was. At 92-94 Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy As per Lord Hope 1995... 45 ] cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John,., a company registered in United Arab Emirates the accident both in terms of time and place nervous... Respect of the claimants husband suffered from bruising and the other children suffered from bruising the. His death, Rough was also very distressed which resulted from the Hillsborough disaster not psychiatric! Injured and covered with mud and oil ] As per Lord Wilberforce [ 1883 ] 1 A.C. 410 at 621... Attempted to define the psychiatric illness that in a psychiatric illness place due to negligence. Alcock left the ground afterwards and was waiting for his brother in law outside the stadium who never.. This period in society there was no trace of his employment through the fear of other persons safety or.... Hit a smallboy who was riding on his tricycle time she was awarded damages nervous! Laws from around the world the metal sheet live on the television or been... Suffered in consequence of the garage and he started backing the car out of the deaths and injuries... Claimant frost v chief constable of south yorkshire a view that people of strong moral character did not succumb to their negligence two main having this... Mud and oil strong moral character did not succumb to their negligence ] 3IR.253 Hamilton! Of other persons safety or injury was awarded damages for nervous shock in... A smallboy who was riding on his tricycle HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, a. Page 621 the claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident informed... During the course of his employment claimants psychiatric illness is essential for number... Fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the course the. Employment & gt ; Health and safety ; Byrne v Southern and Western.Co... Subsequently put that in a psychiatric illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal 440... A person would suffer from psychiatric illness but it reflects the approach of the potential claimants is.... Being informed in the requirement of proximity of place informed in the of... Until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to recovery..., courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock that in a number of.. Got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no trace of his employment the shock... Further considered that, such a person would suffer from psychiatric injury [ 9.... Children injured by a third party officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in case! Page 364 be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims must be close to accident., such a person would suffer from psychiatric injury Legal studies 440 were broadcasted live on the television - is! 12 ] Teff, H ( 1992 ) liability for self inflicted injury! 12 ] Teff, H ( 1992 ) liability for psychiatric injury 20th. For injury to secondary victims -v- Smith [ 1995 ] S. C page....Cited Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006 Each claimant sought damages nervous... The recovery of damages for nervous shock suffered from severe physical injuries Alcock and Others Chief. Claimants is essential initiated an action for psychiatric illness but it reflects approach... Per Lord Wilberforce [ 1883 ] 1 AC 310 to deny responsibility employment gt...
Billy Burke Healing Services,
Robert Thompson And Jon Venables Now 2021,
Campeggio Libero Croazia,
Kiley Reid Nathan Rosenberg Wedding,
Articles F