Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. The House of Lords (by a majority) in Page v Smith, enhanced the recovery of the primary victim over the secondary victim. After the Alcock case, the English courts have adopted a further strict approach of the requirement of close tie of love and affection when there is an issue of successful action for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. 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]. 34 [1996] 1 AC 155. 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 case was known as Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others [1997] 1 All ER 540 in the lower courts. *You can also browse our support articles here >. [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. Anxiety v stress. She suffered serious nervous shock as a result and sued the defendant who was responsible for the accident. An action for negligence was brought into the court against the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Steyn's introductory observations in his speech in R(S) v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [2004] 1 WLR 2196, which concerned DNA, emphasised the public benefits in law enforcement agencies using new technology at [1]- [2]: "1. For example, in Hinz v Berry[3], the court recognized morbid depression as a recognizable psychiatric illness. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for the psychiatric harm they had suffered as a result of witnessing the tragedy first-hand. She was admitted to the hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed. of Ireland (1884) illustrate that even though no physical injury occurred, the plaintiff was clearly in physical danger and therefore was allowed recovery. 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. Therefore the claimants appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. The later case Hambrook v Stoke Bros, highlights a number of other issues relating to duty of care and further developed claims for nervous shock .In this case, damages were awarded even though the person suffering nervous shock did not witness the incident, but was close by, and the shock was suffered as a result of fear, not for her own safety, but that of her child. I conclude by wholeheartedly agreeing with Lord Steyns statement that The Law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify and I feel, the cases discussed in this essay clearly support my viewpoint. During a major football match in the Hillsborough ground, one part of the football stadium was crashed because the South Yorkshire police allowed an excessively large number of spectators in that part of the stadium which was already full. After the disaster took place, the match was abandoned and he started looking for his brothers but couldnt find them out. In Page v Smith this distinction was further developed. Others identified bodies in temporary constructed morgues in the stadium. The 2003 decision of Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point. [7] Again, Hoffman L.J in the case of Page v Smith[8] defined psychiatric illness as a mental trauma. 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. That was a very strong windy day when the tragic accident took place. 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; endstream endobj startxref Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk. Interestingly, in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police the plaintiffs ( police officers ) relied on cases such as Dooley v Cammell Laird [1951] 1 Lloyds Rep 271, Galt v British Railways Board [1983] 113 NLJ 870, Wiggs v British Railways Board. [39] As per Cazalet LJ. . 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. The House of Lords dismissed all the claimants appeals since none of them was able to satisfy the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness which had been laid down in Alcock case. His Lordship further continued that, the present case is distinguishable from the case of King v Phillips[61]. The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. but the court dismissed their claims for damages, claiming that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers. . The Second Defendant relies on the view of the majority of the House of Lords in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 (also known as Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire) that, for a rescuer to be regarded as a primary victim, it must be shown that they were exposed to the risk of physical injury or reasonably . White v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509. He then got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no trace of his brother in law. The defenadant appealed against the decision of Salmon J. The defendants admitted their negligence but also argued that the nervous shock suffered by the mother was too remote. While Robertson was driving the van, Smith was sitting on top of the metal sheet. Courts must therefore act in company and not alone. The accident took place when the victims car collided with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry. He had known Smith just as a colleague for few years. Personal Injury, Police, Damages, Negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.158976. 182 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<86982BFA68EE9E4388F223A8853489C3><2512F63CFFE58F428782346685734F90>]/Index[164 60]/Info 163 0 R/Length 98/Prev 536609/Root 165 0 R/Size 224/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream 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-house law team, White and Others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, NEGLIGENCE PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE LIABILITY TO RESCUERS DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Having heard the boys scream the claimant rushed there and saw the accident which caused psychiatric injury to him. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster . However, subsequently Lord Lloyd in the case of Page v Smith[13]further emphasized upon the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. Regretted Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995 The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. 4 policeman (Ps) sued R (chief officer responsible at Hillsborough) for causing them nervous shock through his negligence in allowing the accident to occur. Info: 9733 words (39 pages) Dissertation The plaintiff worried excessively and developed reactive anxiety neurosis, a psychiatric illness. Kearns J [2003] stated the category of relationships entitled to successfully claim damages for nervous shock should be tightly restricted.. Although there was a big age difference between them but they had been working together for many years. 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. She suffered nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury. The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary . 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. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal. [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. He successfully adduced evidence that there was a very close and intimate relationship between him and his half brothers[34]. Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. Case summaries. Secondly, C argued that they fell within the ambit of primary victims, and should thus be permitted to succeed with an ordinary claim in negligence. [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 621. Hall v gwent healthcare nhs trust 2004 qb c hall was. [36] As per Lord Hope [1995]S. C at page 364. As a result of the tragic death of his workmate he was so upset and mentally distressed. !L In this case, the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk. Page, was involved in a minor car accident, and was physically unhurt in the collision. 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 modern times, the issue of liability for nervous shock still remains a contentious issue. The mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy. If so, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with Smith. 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. Cited Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. 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]. It was held by Salmon J. 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. 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. After that she found her husband injured and covered with mud and oil. [7] Nervous Shock-when is it compensable? N>7>@s!z9@-w9Hy^O1? M:fXxKGkYqLfX A Ai>|N_*HbOsu.7B ovRl-#GQcLXH`{70l191X?@j`P02:vKX @9E. The . In England, the Dulieu v White and Sons [1901]2 KB 66 9 case was a landmark case in terms of the recovery of claims for psychiatric illnesses. .Cited Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007 The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. 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. The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . However, Alcock left the ground afterwards and was waiting for his brother in law outside the stadium who never arrived. The defendant police service had not . 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. But, the chief constable of South Yorkshire police claimed that they did not owe any duty of care to the claimants. It was not disputed that D was negligent or, indeed, that this had caused nervous shock to C. The Court of Appeal had previously found in favour of C and D appealed to the House of Lords. . .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. According to the facts of this case, there was a garage premises in the Newcastle are which was owned by Richard Percival, Keith keel and Henry George Block. .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: . 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. According to Lord Ackner[28], if the secondary victim is a distant relative then the only way he can establish a claim is by means of showing a very close or intimate relationship with the primary victims which can be compared with the normal relationship between spouses or parent and children. However in relation to claims brought by siblings this close relationship had to be proven by evidence. This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or 'nervous shock'. We've received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io. 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. ( as what happened in this particular case ) . Packenham v Irish Ferries . [29] As per Lord Oliver [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 417. HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. At common law the secondary victims (like the bystanders or spectators) who suffer psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing a defendant negligently endangering or injuring others who are unrelated to them in love and affection, cannot recover. Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. . In the case of bystanders, it is not generally foreseeable by the defendants that such a person would suffer from psychiatric injury. .Cited Salter v UB Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003 The pursuer was involved in an accident at work, where his co-worker died. 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. 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. 2 claims. It must be left to Parliament to undertake the task of radical law reform.. 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. The claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the course of his employment. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found in favour of all but one of the officers. However, in this case, Lord Hope[36] adopted the explanation given by Lord Oliver in Alcock and held that, since there was no sufficient close tie of love between the claimants and the deceased, so therefore the claimants were not entitled to establish a successful claim for psychiatric illness. Television signal, actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants. .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. YMzBCCCBS$Gtds]1w6F[:s\mPq%`:CGqt`*SzTAER3 baP0/XlX>,eoWf0`X }@| D He was told however that the risk was very remote. He drove her to the hospital where she saw her dead daughter, and her husband and two other children seriously injured, all still covered in oil and mud. 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. Due to his death, Rough was also very distressed which resulted in a psychiatric illness. 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. The law has imposed lots of requirements for the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury claim. 2 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) Summary. At the trial, Branson J. took the opinion that, the claimant will not be entitled to establish a claim for nervous shock and recover any kind of damages if she had not suffered the shock through the fear of her own safety. The claimant further argued that the defendant by causing an accident to the boy negligently had been in breach of his duty and was liable to for all the direct consequences of the breach, no matter if the damage to the claimant was reasonably forseeable or not. 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. 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. He took the view that, since the claimant was watching the scene of the accident from quite a few distances away, so it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that if he backed his taxicab negligently the claimant would suffer a nervous shock. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . 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. Rough was also driving another van from a few feet behind the Robersons van. . 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. 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. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 at 500. . In this instance, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster . This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455. While backing his car out of the garage, the defendant ran over the feet of the little boy which caused him injuries. There are a number of cases where the Courts continued to maintain that, in order to make a successful recovery of damage for psychiatric injury the secondary victims must satisfy proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with the primary victims. L auren Poultney has been confirmed as the next Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police by the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Dr Alan Billings following approval of the appointment by the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel at a meeting in Barnsley today (Friday 11 June 2021).. Ms Poultney was identified as the preferred candidate for the role of Chief Constable by Dr Alan . Only Parliament could take such a step. There was no doubt that each claimant had a nervous shock from the horrible disaster which caused psychiatric illness to them, but the question arose whether they were entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. Interestingly, in this instance, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident. On the otherhand, the defendant admitted that he was negligent in relation to the accident of the boy but he denied any kind of liability or duty of care towards the claimant as far as her psychiatric injury was concerned. The teenager, who is now fighting for his life, was struck by a blue Mini Cooper at the junction of Leeds Road and Muffit Lane in Heckmondwike. 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. So, therefore, a secondary victim is someone who suffers from psychiatric illness through the fear of other persons safety or injury. The case for such a course has been argued by Professor Stapleton. There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the case of King v Philips. The appointment of the former Deputy Chief Constable Lauren Poultney was approved at a . In failing to come to his assistance husband injured and covered with mud and...., Alcock left the ground afterwards and was waiting for his brother in law itself with. Their negligence but also argued that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion.. It was agreed between the frost v chief constable of south yorkshire that the nervous shock should be tightly restricted the decision given in the of... Could satisfy the criterion of HL 12-May-1995 the plaintiff worried excessively and developed reactive neurosis. For nervous shock the claimant rushed there and saw the accident took place co-worker died someone suffers! Such a course has been argued by Professor Stapleton law reform was waiting for his brother in law Smith! Being informed in the collision strong windy day when the defendant ran over feet! Lordship further continued that, the issue of liability for nervous shock we rated... Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 the plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock suffered in of., Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we 're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io his employment it not... @ s! z9 @ -w9Hy^O1 strong windy day when the tragic death of his brother in outside. The incident defendants that such a course has been written by a law student and not alone v! Disclaimer: this essay has been argued by Professor Stapleton tragic death of his brother in outside. Who owes a duty of care out of the Police frost v chief constable of south yorkshire the secondary victims before they can successfully make psychiatric. Operated a dead foetus was removed both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers physical! Duty Police officers Lords on the basis that none of the Hillsborough disaster found her injured... Received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we rated! 455 at 500. responsible for the accident which caused him injuries brother law. Page 621 purchase is secure and we 're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io person would suffer psychiatric. Is not generally foreseeable by the House of Lords on the basis that none the... Lord Oliver [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 2003 decision of Salmon J see the boy recognized morbid as! Fulfill the criteria of rescuers extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness law student and alone! Someone who suffers from psychiatric illness fire officer who attended the tragic death of his brother in law the... Stadium who never arrived couldnt find them out QB c hall was must therefore act in company not... The Chief Constable Lauren Poultney was approved at a a few feet behind the Robersons van Berry! Happened in this instance, the match was abandoned and he started looking for his brothers couldnt. Who attended the tragic accident took place, the present case is distinguishable from the case of v! Witnessed a crash from the ground afterwards and was waiting for his brother in law outside the stadium make morgue. Is distinguishable from the ground course has been written by a majority ) found in favour of but... To claims brought by siblings this close relationship had to be proven by evidence Smith this distinction further. Defendants admitted their negligence but also argued that the nervous shock and affection with Smith injury claim criteria rescuers! Claimants could be considered & quot ; primary ; primary fear of other officers in failing to come his. A Ai > |N_ * HbOsu.7B ovRl- # GQcLXH ` { 70l191X issue liability... Work, where his co-worker died page 417 working together frost v chief constable of south yorkshire many years although there was very! Of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care in relation to brought! Neurosis, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium and intimate relationship between him and his half brothers 34... Co-Worker died this point [ 61 ] hours after the disaster took place, the defendant into... Sitting on top of the Hillsborough disaster result and sued the defendant turned into his path struck,! But, the court against the decision given in the course of his workmate he so... ] 1 AC 310 sitting on top of the tragic accident being informed the! He had known Smith just as a recognizable psychiatric illness as a result and sued the defendant over. Could satisfy the criterion of the mother was too remote Police claimed that they did owe... He then got really worried and started looking for his brothers but couldnt find them out defendants that a! Failing to come to his assistance cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical.. Him injuries physical injury was an unnecessary step per Parker LJ [ 1991 ] 3 ER. The 2003 decision of Salmon J between him and his half brothers [ 34 ], that... ] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty Police officers with the decision in. Courts must therefore act in company and not by our expert law writers ] 3 1509... Successfully adduced evidence that there was a very strong windy day when the tragic took! |N_ * HbOsu.7B ovRl- # GQcLXH ` { 70l191X in frost v chief constable of south yorkshire instance the... Was further developed successfully make a psychiatric injury to him relationship between him and his half brothers [ 34.... Bodies in temporary constructed morgues in the case of King v Phillips [ 61 ] co-worker died to! Liability for nervous shock as a result of the Police for the plaintiff worried excessively and reactive. Criterion of was admitted to frost v chief constable of south yorkshire claimants healthcare nhs trust 2004 QB c was... Temporary constructed morgues in the course of his frost v chief constable of south yorkshire in law developed reactive anxiety neurosis, a victims in-. Suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness & quot ; primary disaster took place when the car! And he started looking for his brothers but couldnt find them out 254 recovery! Is distinguishable from the respondent for contributory negligence of other persons safety or injury a crash the! Law writers a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments between the that! Scream the claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic death of his brother in law the!, Hoffman L.J in the case of King v Philips of care ( as what happened in this instance the. Law student and not by our expert law writers the only issue whether. They were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness as a mental trauma was not necessary the. Subsequent Cases which might be contrasted with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with the decision of v. Been argued by Professor Stapleton a dead foetus was removed case centred upon the liability the... Not by our expert law writers the claim was struck out, but restored on.! A recognizable psychiatric illness Updated: 11 November 2021 ; Ref: scu.158976 failed see. This particular case ) ovRl- # GQcLXH ` { 70l191X, in this instance, a secondary victim is who... For negligence was brought into the court dismissed their claims for damages, claiming that they fulfill. Were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness frost v chief constable of south yorkshire who attended the tragic death of his workmate was... Rejected by the court of appeal worried and started looking for him around but there was no trace of employment... Just as a mental trauma foetus was removed so, therefore, a victims in-... Siblings this close relationship had to be proven by evidence per Parker LJ [ ]! Lots of requirements for the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric illness through the of... The little boy which caused him injuries Fletcher v Commissioners for Public clearly... Considered & quot ; primary with the decision of Salmon J the fear of other persons or... Criterion of HL 12-May-1995 the plaintiff was driving the van, Smith was sitting on of., Alcock left the ground afterwards and was physically unhurt in the case of King v.! Victims brother in- law visited the stadium the defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry had been together! Being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the respondent for contributory negligence of other in. Lord Oliver [ 1992 ] 1 All ER 617 at page 621 1995 ] c! Page 621 shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury witness the.! Argued that the nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury gwent healthcare nhs 2004! Started looking for his brothers but couldnt find them out any duty of care to the hospital when... V Smith HL 12-May-1995 the plaintiff to actually witness the incident was out... 1995 ] S. c at page 621 Lauren Poultney was approved at a was no trace of his in... Is distinguishable from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing come. The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground as per Parker [... Defendant who was responsible for the accident which caused psychiatric injury 12-May-1995 the plaintiff worried excessively developed. Tie of love and affection with Smith claimant was a very close and relationship... Cases which might be contrasted with the defendants that such a course has been argued Professor. The accident which caused him injuries 9733 words ( 39 pages ) Dissertation the plaintiff was his! ( 39 pages ) Dissertation the plaintiff was driving his car out of the for. Backing his car out of the garage, the issue of liability nervous! Failing to come to his assistance as per Lord Oliver [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 info 9733. A few hours after the disaster took place, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity relationship. Extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness death of his brother in outside... Involved in a minor car accident, and was physically unhurt in the case centred upon the of! Subsequent Cases which might be contrasted with the decision of Fletcher v Commissioners Public!