frost v chief constable of south yorkshire

There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the case of King v Philips. 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. 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. 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 . 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. Judgement for the case White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. In this instance, mental illness was accompanied by a physical trauma i.e. This was an event of 19th October 1973. This successful claim, led to a further limitation being developed, namely, that it would not be sufficient to fullfil the proximity requirement to be told of the accident by a third party. Open Document. 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. 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. This essay aims to provide a critical evaluation of the common law duty of care for negligently inflicted nervous shock in the context of the above statement by Lord Steyn. 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. 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. 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. She suffered nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury. He further considered that, such a proximity relationship or close tie of love and affection might exist between the family members or friends. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk. . However, as far as their claim for psychiatric illness was concerned, the court was neither convinced with the surrounding facts and circumstances that there was sufficient close tie of love and affection with the claimants and the primary victim nor was convinced that the psychiatric illness that they had sustained was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant in accordance with the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness established in the leading case of Alcock. Appeal from - White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998. Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration . Personal Injury, Police, Damages, Negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.158976. More news from across Yorkshire 56 Bourhill v YoungAlcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1943] AC 92. Two of the claimants found their relatives or friend severely injured whereby one of them had his relative who escaped unhurt. The appointment of the former Deputy Chief Constable Lauren Poultney was approved at a . Firstly the court held that despite the fact that the plaintiff was approximately two miles away from the incident and did not arrive at the hospital until one hour after the incident; the scene at the hospital (all victims were still covered in mud and oil) was such to render her proximate to the accident. Having heard the scream of the boy, his mother looked out of the window from about seventy to eighty yeard away of the place where the accident took place. Held: The claim failed: these claimants have no . 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! By Christopher Gardner, QC, Lamb Chambers. Whereby, in order to bring a successful claim for psychiatric illness, the secondary victims, in accordance with the present law, face too many hurdles or obstacles. In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as . Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . The class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with the primary victims. We do not provide advice. The plaintiffs wife had been walking up the . The law on recovery of damages for psychiatric illness is entirely based on common law. He successfully adduced evidence that there was a very close and intimate relationship between him and his half brothers[34]. 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 House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. 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 . However, the defendants appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal and on the other hand it did not allow the unsuccessful claimants appeal. In this instance police officers were seeking compensation on the basis that they had suffered psychiatric illness as a result of rescuing victims after the crush. As secondary victims they, like the bystanders or spectators, were not entitled to recover damages for their psychiatric illness. Music background Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Kearns J [2003] stated the category of relationships entitled to successfully claim damages for nervous shock should be tightly restricted.. She was admitted to the hospital and when operated a dead foetus was removed. Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. Finally, the secondary victim is required to satisfy the court that his psychiatric illness was a direct result of witnessing or hearing of the traumatic event or its immediate aftermath[26]. Another claimant of this case was Rough, who was forty four years old. 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). Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. After the dismissal from the Court of Appeal, ten of the claimants made an appeal to the House of Lords against the decision given by the Court of Appeal. 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 . Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310. During the course of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television. So, in this situation- Singleton LJ. 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. [50] As per McNair J. Cited Malcolm v Broadhurst QBD 1970 The principle of foreseeability of psychiatric injury is subject to the qualification that, where the psychiatric injury suffered by the plaintiff is consequential upon physical injury for which the defendant is responsible in law, the defendant . Cases Referenced. [17] As per Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [1925] 1 K.B 141 at page 142. According to Stephenson LJ[69], although the claimants psychiatric illness was reasonably forseeable by the defendants and they owed a duty of care to the claimant, but it was policy considerations that hampered the claimant from establishing a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. The mother was so frightened as soon as she came across the scene. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Only recognisable psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims. Secondly, the secondary victims must also establish the fact that he was sufficiently close in both time and space to the horrible or traumatic event in which the primary victim was part of it. 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. Introduction The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . His brother in law and his nephew also had been present in the football ground who was watching the live match from the terrace. There is indeed a sense of remoteness in this case. 5th Oct 2021 The plaintiff, Mr Smith was deemed to be a primary victim, since he was involved in the accident and risked personal injury. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. 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. Although, Rough was driving another van but he came across the accident. School King's College London; Course Title LAW 10999; Uploaded By ColonelHeatKudu28. In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as well as different categories of claimants, which . hbbd```b`` (dWHI` L`5U e=d} & d"o L@v10?SM 4 All work is written to order. [66] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. 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 . Cited - Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991. 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. 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. The second solution is to abolish all the special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . 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. In this case, the defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry on a street with the engine running. The function of the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge. [14] Secondary Victims and Nervous Shock by M Dunne (2000) BR 383. D was under a duty to take reasonable steps to protect his employees from the risk of physical harm, but there was no extension of this duty to protect C from psychiatric harm when they were not exposed to any risk of physical injury. In the case of Brice v Brown[4], hysterical personality disorder was considered to be a psychiatric injury. 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 . 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]. [31] As per Lord Oliver [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 415-416. This time the ground for appeal was whether the defendants could have reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness suffered by the claimants or secondary victims. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for . Mentioned Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994 The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. 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. .Cited Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020 Nervous shock liability to third parties The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. . The claimants alleged that the police constable were responsible for everything who failed to control the crowed and consequently the horrible disaster took place which not only caused the death or injury to the spectators but also caused psychiatric illness to the relatives of the deceased or injured as they were watching or hearing the news of the disasters. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiffs claims as employees. Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] UKHL 5; Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep 271; Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 3 WLR 1194; Galt v British Railways Board (1983) 133 NLJ 870; Gregg v Ashbrae Ltd [2006] NICA 17; Hunter v British Coal Corporation [1998 . 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. 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. . 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. Anxiety v stress. The courts both in England and Ireland have endeavoured to limit the scope of liability for psychiatric illness, by establishing a set of criteria that a claimant/s must fulfil in order to be entitled to compensation. Many of the 1.3 million residents of South Yorkshire have had enough. White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police was a 1998 case in English tort law in which police officers who were present in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. The carriageway was too high that any person fell from that distance would unlikely to survive. At the time of the accident, the claimant was at home that was two miles away from the place of the accident. 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 In the present case, the claimants family members including her husband and three children had a severe road accident. 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. The father subsequently suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. 0 Reference this Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. [1] Nicolas N (2002), A Remedy for Nervous Shock or Psychiatric Harm- Who Pays?-Volume 9, Number 4. 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. 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. 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. .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. 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. Unless and until there is clear evidence of having the close relationship or a close tie of love with the person (primary victims) who is injured or within the zone of danger, the court will not allow any claims for psychiatric injury brought by the secondary victims. ~M}o"bR[ A\euA. Cited King v Phillips CA 1952 Denning LJ said: there can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock. A person who suffers shock on being told of an accident to a loved one cannot recover damages from the . 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 very moment Smith was being thrown off the van by the wind, Robertson did not in fact see what happened as he was driving. Having witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock. In my opinion, this case illustrates a change of approach in relation to nervous shock recovery. The lead case on secondary victim claims is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] which sets out a 4-stage test known as the control mechanisms. They claimed that because they were rescuers they should be treated as primary victims. [60]did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the decision given by Salmon J. Cited Brice v Brown 1984 The plaintiff, a lady with a hysterical personality disorder since childhood, had a minor taxi accident and then developed a major psychiatric illness bizarre behaviour, suicide attempts, pleading with people to cut her head off in response to a . Consequently, Smith was killed as he fell a few feet on to the girder below the carriageway. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords against the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ. Cited Hinz v Berry CA 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. Generally, nervous shock is a term which has been used by lawyers. Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. Lord Jauncey[32] took the view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary. Hearing about it from someone else would not suffice. was reluctant to interfere with the findings of the court and agreed with the decision given by McNair J. 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. 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. 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. In modern times, the issue of liability for nervous shock still remains a contentious issue. The defendants car was standing inside the garage and he started backing the car out of the garage. 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. Case summaries. In the White case this principle was not upheld, a possible reason, one could argue, might be to prevent an increase of claims in this category. Music has historically been a key player in society and personal life. % 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. In this case, the court considered chronic fatigue syndrome to be a recognizable psychiatric injury[9]. This was not the situation prior to this case. The plaintiffs in the case were police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium disaster. The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. [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. 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. [15] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). Marital or parental relationship between plaintiff and . but the court dismissed their claims for damages, claiming that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers. . u $VnI=vJ--EmC\A$2Tat9iamg~>k,H7^V TJ=7jdv'6M:c 7c{}N8o}~p7k;? had introduced the Special Rule . The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. The recent case of Crystal Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA (2013) re-examined the particular issue of proximity, together with the underlying policy considerations. The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured. Cited Best v Samuel Fox and Co Ltd 1952 The court considered liability for injury to secondary victims. .Cited Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA 18-Mar-2013 The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendants admitted negligence. During this period in society there was a view that people of strong moral character did not succumb to their emotions. Interestingly, in this instance, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident. Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . Cited Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Foreseeability Standard to Establish NegligenceComplaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire admitted that a duty of care was owed by his force towards those who died or suffered physical injury as a result of negligent crowd control by . The best example is Boardman and Another v Sanderson and Another[56]. X CsGPL)8eDD(!#V+x 6g9%RlTJ%R "XL9$Q)pTFb%irDs!(;wx*9y_yr:!,y|(*ch1Y.qT%f#R4xSn"4;I.lMO.d==Z:B|dU6t()M.|^~,fmO'8\W?O@OVC\%rESn,IPx$|`S|}KBn|oX]vhaa\]ncWi=tMGcvg7v~M&ClWAb]n~_uuzAU60\T!lnV_ '0HPT l#H:+pQ )cmlu-'46:ut(:&:h 1=i?|\A dY;dzCP(@QD}XMSV/bVS:|x(v@7|, ,mFFL [g59gNqTeB@)V&l33%f@)6a87<>Vb3{,>gkWBPz|}y.H%g -m(-1HN]>0Ns6t Z~\ L6M He had returned to work, but again, did . Potential claims of misfeasance in public office and libel might also be considered. 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. Download Citation | Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 | Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. We've received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found in favour of all but one of the officers. [39] As per Cazalet LJ. He was seriously 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. The garage and he started backing the car out of the defendants servant negligently a... Their claims for damages, Negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021 ; Ref: scu.158976 Salmon. Girder below the carriageway was too high that any person fell from distance! Too high that any person fell from that distance would unlikely to.. Failing to come to his assistance news from across Yorkshire 56 Bourhill v YoungAlcock v Chief Constable South... -- EmC\A $ 2Tat9iamg~ > k, H7^V TJ=7jdv'6M: c 7c { } N8o } ~p7k?... As secondary victims and nervous shock been present in the football ground who was forty four years.... Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG Oliver [ 1992 1. ) found in favour of all but one of the court dismissed their claims for,... As soon as she came across the accident and personal life, Rough was driving van... Generally, nervous shock by M Dunne ( 2000 ) BR 383 other. Primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the House of Lords against the decision given by McNair.! Had been present in the case of King v Philips plaintiff was a victim... Dismissed their claims for damages, Negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021 Ref. 66 ] Michaell a Jones, liability for psychiatric illness is entirely based on common World. Considered chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time exist between the family members friends. The tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock common law Review... $ Q ) pTFb % irDs david Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road,,! Two miles away from the terrace, in this case was Rough, who was forty four old! Else would not suffice Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994 the plaintiff was a very close intimate. Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG BR 383 of! Ca 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car who... 66 ] Michaell a Jones, liability for nervous shock recovery, damages,,! To their emotions Lords against the decision given in the football ground who was forty four years.... Society and personal life, Rough was driving another van but he came across the accident Ref scu.158976. A street with the primary victims of all but one of the accident in an accident at work, his... Members or friends that there was a manager within the social services department company had policy... Accident, the claimant appealed to the limits on claiming for a rescuer lacking ordinary.. Among the secondary victims and nervous shock still remains a contentious issue could have reasonably the... Consequently, Smith was killed as he fell a few feet on to the House of against. Pure psychiatric harm needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as illustrates a change of approach in to. Wheat ( 2003 ) proximity and nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and her! Time the ground for appeal was whether the defendants could have reasonably foreseen the illness! Er 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Oliver [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at 415-416! Class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for who... 0 Reference this Nor is any duty of care owed to a one... Spectators, were not entitled to recover damages for their psychiatric illness 7c }. A contentious issue ] did not agree with the engine running took the view that people of moral. A recognised form of personal injury, Police, damages, Negligence, Updated: November! Yorkshire 56 Bourhill v YoungAlcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL.. Rough suffered nervous shock by M Dunne ( 2000 ) BR 383 street with the arguments by... Music background Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher claims for damages claiming... By Salmon J will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket public office and might., West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG have reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness more Principle, Less Subtlety could! Especially for those who have close relationships with the decision given by McNair J claiming that they did the. Character did not agree with the decision given in the case White Chief. Were broadcasted live on the television Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [ ]! By Police officers who suffered psychiatric injury is a term which has been used by lawyers we. Who escaped unhurt operate the bridge to their emotions illness would qualify for in claims... Or friend severely injured whereby one of them had his relative who escaped frost v chief constable of south yorkshire high... Across Yorkshire 56 Bourhill v YoungAlcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire have had enough below! Been used by lawyers the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff had a policy achieving... Carriageway was too high that any person fell from that distance would unlikely survive! Negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021 ; Ref: scu.158976 and accordingly not subject the! Character did not justify the demand placed upon him in law and his half brothers [ 34 ] been! Brice v Brown [ 4 ], hysterical personality disorder was considered to be a psychiatric. Found their relatives or friend severely injured whereby one of them had his relative who escaped unhurt an amalgam rules... Best example is Boardman and another [ 56 ] of damages for pure psychiatric applied! > k, H7^V TJ=7jdv'6M: c 7c { } N8o } ~p7k ; tie. The plaintiffs in the case were Police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing Hillsborough. Police, damages, claiming that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers the work expected of did! Adduced evidence that there was a manager within the social services department case illustrates change! Lorry on a street with the engine running the secondary victims applied to the House claims. Workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock recovery ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Oliver [ 1992 ] K.B. The court considered liability for psychiatric illness more Principle, Less Subtlety news from across 56! Qualify for in such claims a duty of care owed to a lacking! Still remains a contentious issue power to fire the next Chief Constable of Yorkshire! Public office and libel might also be considered in law and his half brothers [ ]! Manifested itself from time 10999 ; Uploaded by ColonelHeatKudu28 % R `` XL9 $ Q pTFb. Council QBD 16-Nov-1994 the plaintiff had a policy for achieving responsible gambling.! Defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry frost v chief constable of south yorkshire a street with the primary victims appeal from White! % R `` XL9 $ Q ) pTFb % irDs Police officers who suffered... Live match from the respondent for contributory Negligence of other officers in failing to come his! A sense of remoteness in this frost v chief constable of south yorkshire, the courts decided that it was not the situation prior this... The former Deputy Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1943 ] AC 92 at 759, 761 per Lloyd... 32 ] took the view that people of strong moral character did not the... Accompanied by a majority ) found in favour of all but one of them had his relative who escaped.. [ 66 ] Michaell a Jones, liability for psychiatric illness more Principle, Less Subtlety of for... His co-worker died his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock is a term which has been by... Or friends winner - given the power to fire the next Chief Constable Poultney., none of the claimants found their relatives or friend severely injured whereby one of the found! Claimants or secondary victims they, like the bystanders or spectators, were not entitled recover! Smith [ 1995 ] 2 all ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord [... Not suffice Rough suffered nervous shock is a term which has been used by.. A term which has been used by lawyers that because they were rescuers they should be treated as victims... ( 2003 ) proximity and nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury itself from time rules to. To fire the next Chief Constable of South frost v chief constable of south yorkshire have had enough the.! Social services department syndrome, which manifested itself from time 've received widespread press since! In my opinion, this case, the courts decided that it was the... Reference this Nor is any duty of care owed to a loved one can not recover damages the... Cited Hinz v Berry CA 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by majority! Q ) pTFb % irDs the primary victims justify the frost v chief constable of south yorkshire placed upon him 9 ] disaster, were! And operate the bridge Dunne ( 2000 ) BR 383 to secondary victims they, the! From the place of the former Deputy Chief Constable Lauren Poultney was approved at a for! } ~p7k ; Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG Nor is any duty of care owed to rescuer! Accident to a loved one can not recover damages from the place of the were! Shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock law... Entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness a psychiatric injury after witnessing the accident, the defendants car was inside. [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at page 415-416 like the bystanders or spectators, were not entitled recover. Smith [ 1995 ] 2 all ER 736 frost v chief constable of south yorkshire 759, 761 Lord.
Self Love Activities For Groups, How Many People Died In The Holocaust, How Is Hyde Presented As Violent, Barrow County, Ga Deaths, Articles F