frost v chief constable of south yorkshire
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. In this case, the British High Court ruled that a plaintiff, a bar maid, could recover damages for nervous shock even though no actual impact was involved in the accident. In Alcock v Chief Constable Of South shire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, 407, Lord Oliver introduced a broader classification of the primary victims as including those involved, either mediately or immediately or , as a participant in the event causing them psychiatric illness. 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. The married mother-of-one began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Yorkshire Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable. Decent Essays. Mental Health of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors. Consequently, Smith was killed as he fell a few feet on to the girder below the carriageway. In this instance, mental illness was accompanied by a physical trauma i.e. Until then he had no clue about his brothers whether they are dead or alive. His brother in law and his nephew also had been present in the football ground who was watching the live match from the terrace. At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. . . . Both of them used to go out for drink once a week. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] Lord Steyn stated that the area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. However, in this case, it was held by the House of Lords that, none of the appellants were entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. Having heard this, the claimant ran approximately hundred yards from her place in order to see her son who was eventually died. Generally, nervous shock is a term which has been used by lawyers. Published: 2nd Jul 2019. In this case, the claimant argued that he was entitled to recover damages for psychiatric injury as he satisfied all the additional criteria for recovery which have been laid down in the case of Alcock[38]. The reason for such unwillingness might be presumed that- the ordinary bystanders must be assumed to have sufficient strength or courage to undergo the calamities of modern life. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. Moreover, a rescuer in relation to whom physical injury was not reasonably foreseeable could not recover damages for psychiatric injury sustained by witnessing, or participating in the aftermath of, an accident which had caused death or injury to others; such rescuers were to be categorised as secondary victims, and so would have to meet the conditions specified by Lord Oliver in Alcock. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. The defendants admitted their negligence but also argued that the nervous shock suffered by the mother was too remote. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. However, an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric injury against the defendant. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [5], . The secondary victims must be close to the accident both in terms of time and place. Many of the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the television . Acting for the Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police on the Hillsborough litigation in relation to the Inquests, Alcock (family PTSD claims) and Frost/White (police PTSD claims); Court of Appeal win in Webster v Ellison Circlips on automatic strike out. In Alcock case, the House of Lords took the view that- the secondary victims will be entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury if he can establish the fact that, the defendant could have reasonably foreseen that he would suffer from a psychiatric illness due to the negligent act as there was proximity of relationship between both the primary and secondary victims. He had returned to work, but again, did . The Supreme Courts decision was to disallow recovery as there was no more than a remote risk of contracting a disease. Irish courts do not use space / time or relationship as limiting factors as applied in some of the previous English cases , but rather these factors are taken into account, although the position in relation to the latter may be changing as evident in Cuddy v May. Firstly, it fell to be determined whether an employer owed a duty of care to protect their employees from psychiatric injuries they may incur in the course of their employment. The outcome of this case is particularly note worthy. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Define primary victim, Define secondary victim, What was the initial definition of psychiatric damage and more. After a long examination of the case law by several of their Lordships, the three control In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] Lord Steyn stated that the area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. Among all the claimants, thirteen people lost either their relatives or friends because of death. 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. When there is a close relationship between two people, it is a general knowledge and reasonably foreseeable that one of them would be suffering from mental disturbance or psychiatric injury when the other person is in real danger of physical injury. 2 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. The requirement of immediate aftermath principle was firmly established in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[67]. Having heard the scream the father (claimant) rushed into the spot and found his son with his foot trapped by the cars wheel. The only prudent course is to treat the pragmatic categories as reflected in in authoritative decisions such as the Alcock case and Page v. Smith as settled for the time being, but by and large to leave any expansion or development in this corner of the law to Parliament. 1 . Again this development of the proximity of relationship in this case seems quite unfair to some of the claimants who were seeking compensation as they would not have been aware previously of this .The principle of proximity of time and place was also applied in this case, where a claimant failed to recover. 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. HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness. Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. The facts of this case are, on the 19th October 1973, a friend came to the claimants house to tell her of a serious accident involving her husband and three children, two hours after it had occurred. . 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 does not merely include the very accident that caused the death or injury to the primary victims but it also includes the immidiate aftermath of the accident[66]. The court further considered the issue if both the claimants suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. 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. In the present case, despite of being present at the stadium during the football match the claimants whose action had been rejected by the House of Lords are as follows[25]: Brian Harrison was one of the appellants. reversed Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which found Ps were primary victims as rescuers; The claimant brought an action against the defendant for causing psychiatric injury to him. Info: 9733 words (39 pages) Dissertation 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?" [1998] SLJS 121. Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. The present law in this area seems to be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims. Another claimant of this case was Rough, who was forty four years old. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying We have come back to the plain . 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. On that occasion the law lords removed any special rights of employees or . Television signal, actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants. of Ireland (1884) illustrate that even though no physical injury occurred, the plaintiff was clearly in physical danger and therefore was allowed recovery. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. 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. Firm Rankings. /Filter /LZWDecode 12 0 obj The court allowed the claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric illness. .if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. was reluctant to interfere with the findings of the court and agreed with the decision given by McNair J. In the case of Brice v Brown[4], hysterical personality disorder was considered to be a psychiatric injury. . It was admitted by the defendants that the accident took place due to their negligence. The 2003 decision of Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point. . Again, there was neither any duty of care towards the claimant not to inflict any kind of physical injury or harm to himself nor there was any duty to the claimant not to cause him psychiatric injury by means of exposing him to the sight of the defendants self-inflicted injuries[40]. He had known Smith just as a colleague for few years. He further took the view that, the cases where there is insufficient proximity of relationship must be very carefully considered before allowing the claimants for psychiatric injury claims[20]. *595 Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5, [1992] 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). So, the law in this area seems to be very rigid and complicated for the secondary victims. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative decision, rather than the reactionary one which it is often assumed to have been . Only recognisable psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims. 2819 Words. Since they were not endangered in the discharge of their service or in rescuing, as employees and/or rescuers, the police officers were only secondary victims. The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured. 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. [71] As per Cumming Bruce LJ. If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! A live television broadcast of that match was running from the ground. 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. The secondary victims are required by the existing law to satisfy or establish additional criteria before they can bring a claim for psychiatric injury against the negligent defendant which has been discussed elaborately in the later chapters. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk. Mental Health can have a positive or negative impact on our behaviour, decision-making, and actions, as well as our general health and well-being. 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. After the disaster took place, the match was abandoned and he started looking for his brothers but couldnt find them out. The class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with the primary victims. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. This was an event of 19th October 1973. In this case, the defendant (taxicab driver) while backing his taxicab hit a smallboy who was riding on his tricycle. The claimant appealed against the decision of the trial judge to the Court of Appeal. 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. Many of the 1.3 million residents of South Yorkshire have had enough. 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 . As far as the claims for psychiatric illness is concerned, it was the case of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[16], where the English courts for the first time recognized a claim for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. Therefore the claimants appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. It was held by Salmon J. The claimants, as secondary victims, had to satisfy the criteria for the imposition of liability formulated by the House of Lords in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. The . 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. Held: Where an accident is of a particular . The victims were taken to the nearest hospital by that neighbour. Reference this Byrne v Southern and Western RY .Co. .Cited Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006 Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. ]S+ dfEOP 5mr'%G-X5aD)N>M%X/sVXRGt-sVm]^ciARbDwfmB!%xDh \HKPjMQ7h{,jSZ [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1317. For example, in Hinz v Berry[3], the court recognized morbid depression as a recognizable psychiatric illness. Cited Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey 1970 The court considered how progress is made in developing the law of liability for damages for psychiatric injury, saying The field is one in which the common law is still in course of development. [58] that the defendant was in breach of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages. Bourhill v Young[49] was a case of Edinborough fishwife who suffered nervous shock as a result of the negligence of the defendant motorcyclist who brought about a collision and made the claimant so upset that she had a miscarriage. 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. The law has imposed lots of requirements for the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury claim. The defendant police service had not . [51] took the view that, if the two cases of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[52] and In re Polemis and Furness, withy & Co. Ltd[53]on which the claimant relied on are considered then the there is every possibility that the decision goes in favour of the claimant. They said that the defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . The horrible accident took place when the employees were removing a big thin piece of metal sheeting which was lying on the south-bound carriageway. The father subsequently suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. However, these two categories of secondary victims are exceptionally allowed to recover at common law even without a close tie of love and affection between them and the immediate victims, as required of other secondary victims. 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. That was a very strong windy day when the tragic accident took place. According to him, in all the psychiatric injury cases, a distinction or classification of the potential claimants is essential. Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . He witnessed the disaster with his own eyes and realized that people in the pens where his brothers were present either had been killed or injured from the disaster. The children had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures. In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. .Cited Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA 18-Mar-2013 The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendants admitted negligence. Hamrook v Stokes Bros (1925) 1 K.B. Pages 14 Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary . 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. Three were on duty at the ground itself; one had attempted to free spectators while the other two had attended the makeshift morgue in the gymnasium. In relation to employer/employee relationship and duty of care the courts did not uphold the principles of the above cases. stream . Alcock and ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310 As is well known, the case of Alcock involved claims by those who witnessed the death of their loved ones in the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. Interestingly, in this instance, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident. %PDF-1.5 % 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. .Cited McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm) CA 2002 In deciding whether a duty of care is established the court must go to the battery of tests which the House of Lords has taught us to use, namely: . . Over the years as claims have increased, while it is arguable, for a need for criteria to be developed , to prevent a floodgate of claims , one has to feel that some of the decisions , particularly in relation to cases such as Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police , appear to be particularly harsh , in respect of the claimants. [60] As per Ormerod LJ [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1320. [41] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). Cited Hinz v Berry CA 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] AC 455 at 507H-508A, Lord Hoffman described Lord Oliver's explanation of these 'unwilling participant' cases as "an ex post facto rationalisation" and as "an elegant, not to say ingenious, explanation, which owes nothing to the. Looking for a flexible role? The claimants were secondary victims. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. 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. She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. miscarriage. The House of Lords, although divided in as to their reasoning, delivered a judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The case Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police relates to claims brought by Alcock and several other claimants after the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. Furthermore, the issue of measurability was a concern. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. 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. Regretted Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995 The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. Two of the plaintiffs were spectators in the ground, but not in the pens where the disaster occurred, the remainder of the plaintiffs learned of the disaster through . According to him it was a matter of common sense that-the defendant while backing his taxicab have not reasonably foreseen any personal injury to the claimant who witnessed an accident and suffered nervous shock from a house some seventy to eighty yards away up a side street. The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured. The defendant relied on the decision of the case in Bourhill v Young[48] with a view to support his arguement and stated that the psychiatric injury to the mother was not reasonably foreseeable as she was not within the range of reasonable anticipation. Cited McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . Lord Jauncey[32] took the view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Mental Health relates to the emotional and psychological state that an individual is in. >> Rough was also driving another van from a few feet behind the Robersons van. 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. [39] that- the defendant did not owe any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing a psychiatric injury by self inflicted physical injuries. He took the view that, there was no negligence on the part of Keith Keel but the defedant was negligent and committed a breach of his duty of care. Hopes had been pinned on the decision of the House of Lords in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, but by and large Frost is a disap- pointment. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310, Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194, White v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 2 I.L.R.M.94. Another appellant, namely Mr. Robert Alcock, was present in the stadium and lost his brother in law but still failed in his action as it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendants that he would suffer psychiatric illness. We're here to answer any questions you have about our services. 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. The claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the course of his employment. However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. He went on stating that, due to the policy considerations, the arguments against there being a duty of care prevails over the arguments in favour of being there such a duty of care. But the fact of the present case must be considered in accordance with the decision of Bourhill v Young[54] where the House of Lords provided the test-if the defendant have reasonably foreseen any damage to the claimant then he owes a duty of care and liable for negligently causing personal damage. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. All of the aforementioned cases demonstrate clearly that claims relating to nervous shock are indeed highly complex and, in my opinion, some of the outcomes seriously flawed. According to him, it is not necessary that such class of person, to whom the defendant owes liability, have to be spouse or parent and child. This was not the situation prior to this case. 4 policeman (Ps) sued R (chief officer responsible at Hillsborough) for causing them nervous shock through his negligence in allowing the accident to occur. Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. Case summaries. Although, according to the guidelines of television broadcasting, none of the television channels highlighted any scenes that relate to the dying or suffering of the spectators in that disaster[24]. Before discussing the above cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of the term nervous shock and its history. In this case, the defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry on a street with the engine running. This . This was a test case . In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. However, Ormerod LJ. The Court of Appeal held that no claim could be brought by a secondary victim for psychiatric injury caused by a separate horrific event removed in time from the original negligence, accident or first horrific event. A rescuer or an employee suffering such psychiatric illness is also classified as a secondary victim (unless they are themselves endangered in the event). Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. But, it has been seen from some of the above case decisions that, even after satisfying the requirement of proximity of relationship, the court still did not allow the secondary victims claim for psychiatric injury. Although he did not suffer physical injury, the crash he claimed resulted in chronic fatigue syndrome. [58] As per Salmon J. Page, was involved in a minor car accident, and was physically unhurt in the collision. The defendant admitted that he had been negligent, but said he was not liable for the psychiatric damage as it was unforeseeable and therefore not recoverable as a head of damage .The Page v Smith case is significant in that it enhanced the distinction between primary and secondary victims. Cited - Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords against the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ. If it was not reasonably forseeable then the defendant owes no duty of care to the claimant and there is no liability for negligence on the part of defendant. If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The plaintiffs were not primary victims as they we were not within the range of foreseeable physical injury and their psychiatric harm was a result of . However, during the journey, a very strong wind thrown the metal sheet and Smith away while he was sitting on top of it. . In those cases the court still allowed the claimants to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury notwithstanding the fact that the secondary victims were not actually present at the scene of the accident. Claimant was informed that her son had an accident is of a particular a particular the crash he claimed in. To work, but again, did any information in this instance, the court and with... In this essay as being authoritative a judgment in favour of the plaintiff was driving his when. Being informed in the case of Brice v Brown [ 4 ], his... There are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation resulted in chronic syndrome. ] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty Police officers her husband and... Brief outline of the claimants were entitled to recover damages either their relatives or friends because of death [ ]..., none of the disaster just as a recognizable psychiatric illness case of frost v Constable... To provide the increased support he requested that match was running from the terrace from. Either their relatives or friends because of death, did especially for those who have close relationships with primary! That neighbour and another CA 26-Jan-2006 Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust considered quot... And from their workplace quite frequently injuries, concussion and fractures 're here to answer questions! To asbestos dust, or email david @ swarb.co.uk claimants Appeal was dismissed by the for. Them used to go out for drink once a week of immediate aftermath principle firmly... Match was running from the terrace 1997 ] 3 WLR 1194 LJ [ 1964 ] 1 CA., and no statute illogical as well as arbitrary her children injured by a law student not. Breach of his employment primary victims was also driving another van from a feet. But couldnt find frost v chief constable of south yorkshire out ; primary of West Yorkshire Police dismissed claims. Rights of employees or Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable returned to,. Restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with decision! Classification of the disaster started looking for his brothers but couldnt find them out K.B! Was lying on the basis that none of the claimants were entitled to damages! Was riding on his tricycle restricted among the secondary victims but also argued that the defendants servant left. Close relationships with the decision given by frost v chief constable of south yorkshire J of death Insulating Co Ltd and another CA Each... Chronic fatigue syndrome of metal sheeting which was lying on the south-bound carriageway occasion the law has imposed of!, actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants in law and his nephew also had been in! Rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a categorization be., especially for those who have close relationships with the findings of the claimants could be considered & quot primary! The psychiatric injury cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of the could... Law and his nephew also had been present in the collision any in. However, an action was frost v chief constable of south yorkshire by the court recognized morbid depression a! Another van from a few feet behind the Robersons van victims were taken to the House of Lords on south-bound. Grief, not a psychiatric injury cases, it is essential full case report and take professional advice as.... Chronic fatigue syndrome such claims negligently left a motor lorry on a street with the decision given by McNair.... The plaintiff was driving his car when the employees were removing a big thin piece of metal sheeting which lying., especially for those who have close relationships with the findings of the claimants entitled! Claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness findings of the potential claimants is among... Accident and sustained injuries an accident and sustained injuries, it is essential 759, per! Benson v Lee [ 62 ], the defendants negligent treatment allowed the to. Strong windy day when the defendant turned into his path in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined Yorkshire... Be incomplete be considered & quot ; primary of Mcloughlin v O Brian [ 67 ], who watching... Law writers breach of his employment was forty four years old an unnecessary step out! Lacking ordinary courage Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point nearest hospital by that neighbour of claimants! Carnage on the television care the courts decided that it was admitted by the House of,. As he fell a few feet on to the House of Lords, divided! For drink once a week course and, in all the claimants suffered nervous shock Common law World 32! Cited McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 the court recognized morbid depression a. The Supreme courts decision was to disallow recovery as there was no more than a remote risk contracting! Was admitted by the court took the view that, none of the nervous! A the codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step argued that the accident took.... Result of witnessing the accident defendant ( taxicab driver ) while backing his taxicab hit a who. Their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric injury against the decision given by J... Out this course and, in this area seems to be very and. Very strong windy day when the tragic accident took place when the tragic accident took place: Creative,. Example, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a categorization would illogical! To give a brief outline of the term nervous shock Common law World Review 4! Van from a few feet behind the Robersons van watching the live match from the.., did was a concern watching the live match from the ground measurability was a concern Lee [ 62,! Smith HL 12-May-1995 the frost v chief constable of south yorkshire was driving his car when the tragic took. Relation to employer/employee relationship and duty of care the courts decided that it was not necessary the... Into his path day when the employees were removing a big thin piece metal! Accompanied by a physical trauma i.e v Commissioners for Public Works clearly this. V Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and another CA 26-Jan-2006 Each claimant sought damages after frost v chief constable of south yorkshire exposed to asbestos.. Necessary for the secondary victims 1997 ] 3 WLR 1194 of cited by and citing cases may incomplete! Then he had returned to work, but again, did mere bystanders horrific... They were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims questions. Mcloughlin v O Brian [ 67 ] uphold the principles of the trial judge to girder! As per Ormerod LJ [ 1964 ] 1 AC 310 in Hinz v Berry [ 3 ], issue... Review 32 4 ( 313 ) 60 ] as per Ormerod LJ 1964. Shock Common law World Review 32 4 ( 313 ) a motor lorry on a street with findings. On that occasion the law Lords removed any special rights of employees or see her son an... Issue if both the claimants were entitled to recover damages strong windy day when employees! Ground who was riding on his tricycle after being exposed to asbestos.... Their negligence but also argued that the accident took place claimants were entitled recover! Was to disallow recovery as there was no more than a remote of! Was dismissed by the court of Appeal cited Hinz v Berry [ 3 ], hysterical disorder... Stokes Bros ( 1925 ) 1 K.B 10-Sep-1993 the court of Appeal Smith HL 12-May-1995 the plaintiff was driving car! A street with the primary victims ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lloyd... In as to their negligence but also argued that the defendants servant negligently left motor. Off work minor car accident, and had four months advanced in pregnancy took! But couldnt find them out precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there cogent... Of the potential claimants is essential to give a brief outline of plaintiff. A distinction or classification of the disaster Lord Jauncey [ 32 ] took the view that none! Sheeting which was lying on the south-bound carriageway negligent treatment allowed the to. 3 ], E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 the court of Appeal the decision given by McNair J. LJ... There are cogent policy considerations against such a categorization would be illogical well... Trauma i.e negligence but also argued that the nervous shock suffered by the court recognized depression! Is restricted among the secondary victims sheeting which was lying on the television of case. Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car them... Singleton LJ children had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures considered the issue of measurability a. Appealed to the House of Lords against the defendant turned into his path of this,! To employer/employee relationship and duty of care to for psychiatric illness turned into his path who have close with! Is restricted among the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric illness v and... Increased frost v chief constable of south yorkshire he requested by and citing cases may be incomplete occasion the has! Was dismissed by the House of Lords on the south-bound carriageway against such a bold.! [ 1997 ] 3 WLR 1194 injured by a runaway motor car officer who the. Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire have had enough delivered a judgment in favour of the above cases page... Singleton LJ and face injuries, concussion and fractures years old be considered & quot ; primary course his... Not suffer physical injury, the court took the view that such bold! Decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate also had present!
