They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force. The 2003 decision of Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point. 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 . The Irish courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock. Only full case reports are accepted in court. 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'. In this case, Lord Oliver[29] took the view that-Brian Harrison, one of the appellants, lost his two brothers but still failed in his action in spite of his presence in the stadium, because he produced no evidence of close tie of love with his two brothers. In this instance, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster . The above judgment in White v The Chief Constable allowed the defendants' appeal against the 1997 Court of Appeal decision in Frost & Ors. [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 621. That appears to be the course advocated by Mullany and Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damage. In this case, the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk. Having heard the scream the father (claimant) rushed into the spot and found his son with his foot trapped by the cars wheel. 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 . The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. In reality there are no refined analytical tools which will enable the courts to draw lines by way of compromise solution in a way that is coherent and morally defensible. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA. In a subsequent case, Packenham v Irish Ferries Limited this principle was upheld and damages were not awarded as there was no recognized psychiatric illness. << This was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned. 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. HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness. The Greatorex v Greatorex and another[37]is another case in which the question arose whether a defendant owes any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing him a psychiatric injury by self inflicted injuries. Prior to this, the initial response of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility. 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. He then got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no trace of his brother in law. 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 Kelly v Hennessy [1995] 3IR.253 CJ Hamilton laid down criteria, which have become the standard test for nervous shock. This was an event of 19th October 1973. . In this case, the court was concerned whether the claimants fall into the category of secondary victims and therefore entitled to bring an action against the defendants. Similarly there are some other cases where the claimants were not actually present at the scene of the accident but the court still held the defendant liable for negligently inflicting psychaitric injury to the claimants. Such a relationship which is full of close tie and affection may be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship. This time the ground for appeal was whether the defendants could have reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness suffered by the claimants or secondary victims. So according to Keiths directions the defenadant was backing his car out and paying attention to him. See para 1.5 n 14 below. [1952] 2 All ER 459 at page 460. 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. They would allow claims for pure psychiatric damage by mere bystanders: see (1997) 113 LQR 410, 415. l'LCocI2Vp.0c Also the plaintiff had to establish that the nervous shock caused by the accident, resulted from her fear for her own safety. The unsuccessful claimants made a cross appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judges decision whereby the defendants also appealed against the ten successful claimants. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. The requirement that the secondary victims must be physically present to the accident or its immediate aftermath was for the first time established by Lord Wilberforce in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[42] which subsequently had been approved by the House of Lords in the leading case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire[43]. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Although he did not suffer physical injury, the crash he claimed resulted in chronic fatigue syndrome. Most importantly, the development of the law in this area has been influenced by policy considerations, that is to say, to restrict the large number of potential claimants. Only full case reports are accepted in court. 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. Accordingly, in the case of Robertson and Rough v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board[35], the claimants brought an action against the defendants for a horrible disaster that took place on the Forth Road Bridge. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . Looking for a flexible role? . swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. 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. In this instance, mental illness was accompanied by a physical trauma i.e. ( as what happened in this particular case ) . They claimed that because they were rescuers they should be treated as primary victims. Furthermore, the issue of measurability was a concern. However, Ormerod LJ. So, finally, the House of Lord dismissed the appeal made by the claimant. She suffered serious nervous shock as a result and sued the defendant who was responsible for the accident. . Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. On August 18, 1955, the defendant, namely Mr. Sanderson went to the garage along with the claimant and his son for the purpose of collecting his car as they had decided to go out for holiday. Others failed the close ties of love and affection . Regretted Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995 The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. 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. [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. In other words psychiatric shock was to be treated as direct personal injury. .Cited Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) Summary. 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 . At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . 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. Cazalet J. agreed with the claimant that he meets all the recovery criteria that govern a claim for psychiatric injury sustained by him. Published: 2nd Jul 2019. If the claimant was a rescuer who went to the aid of others involved in an accident, they will only be defined as a primary victim if they were, or reasonably believed themselves to be, in danger. We do not provide advice. Lord Oliver[30] thought that, Mr. Brians action failed not only because he could not provide with evidence of close tie of love and affection but also because the perception of the shocking event was gradual as opposed to the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event. >> 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. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. White v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509. 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. 1194. Judgment - White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Principle of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1998) police officers who were present in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. It was admitted by the defendants that the accident took place due to their negligence. Close ties of love and affection was assumed in relation to parent- child and spouse relationships. 2 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. For example, in Hinz v Berry[3], the court recognized morbid depression as a recognizable psychiatric illness. In this case, the court considered chronic fatigue syndrome to be a recognizable psychiatric injury[9]. In modern times, the issue of liability for nervous shock still remains a contentious issue. . 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. In support of the first proposition, the defendants rely on the principles developed in a trilogy of House of Lords decisions commencing with Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, continuing with Page v Smith [1996] AC 155, and culminating in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (on . Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . In the Irish context, a different policy approach has been adopted and it appears to be more difficult to recover damages in relation to nervous shock , the strict criteria which have been laid down clearly demonstrate this viewpoint. So, after a very careful consideration of the facts and surrounding circumstances, his Lordship dismissed the defendants appeal. 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. II. .Cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. .Considered Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc SCS 30-Jun-1999 . Finally, after a careful consideration of all the issues, it was held by Cazalet J. All work is written to order. [15] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). . In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [5], . The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim. He was a road worker instructed to attend by the defendant immediately after a terrible accident. . However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. This was not the situation prior to this case. Such cases highlight to me, that recovery for damages relating to nervous shock, is probably one of the most controversial and complex areas of modern law. .Cited Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000 A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. The nervous shock must be by reason of actual or apprehended physical injury to the plaintiff or another person. It appears to have played an unjustifiably large part in the . She alleged that, as result of suffering from psychiatric illness she had a change in her personality that seriously affected her capabilities as a mother and wife. He successfully adduced evidence that there was a very close and intimate relationship between him and his half brothers[34]. Appeal from White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998 No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. 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. The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. 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. They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. [34] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. Published: 21st Jan 2022. Traditionally, the category of close relationship indicates the familial relationship, such as the relationship between the spouses, parents and children, brothers and sisters etc. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Taylor v Somerset HA [1993] PIQR P 262 2. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? No plagiarism, guaranteed! This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455. According to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the clamant was not close to the place of the accident who was informed by someone of that after two hours. After the disaster took place, the match was abandoned and he started looking for his brothers but couldnt find them out. . Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal. The case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire[22]is the best example which provided the criteria for recovery of psychiatric injury claims by the secondary victims. . [14] Secondary Victims and Nervous Shock by M Dunne (2000) BR 383. But that would be contrary to precedent and, in any event, highly controversial. 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. So, finally it was held by the majority of the Court of Appeal that the defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant even though her psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable. 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. [23] Davie M (1992) Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Illness: The Hillsborough Case in the House of Lords 43 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 237. More news from across Yorkshire 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. Lord Jauncey[32] took the view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary. Personal Injury, Police, Damages, Negligence, Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.158976. 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. . 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. But he further took the view that, there is no reported English case decision where it has been established that whether a defendant owes any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing him a psychiatric injury by self inflicted injuries. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiffs claims as employees. Cited Best v Samuel Fox and Co Ltd 1952 The court considered liability for injury to secondary victims. The mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy. 4 policeman (Ps) sued R (chief officer responsible at Hillsborough) for causing them nervous shock through his negligence in allowing the accident to occur. In this case, the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy also lost his half brother in the Hillsborough disaster. The father subsequently suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. It is an important matter of discussion what is actually meant by psychiatric illness or if there is any specific definition of psychiatric illness under the English law of tort. Judgement for the case White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. [50] stated that the present case is not a margianl one. Page, was involved in a minor car accident, and was physically unhurt in the collision. His brother in law and his nephew also had been present in the football ground who was watching the live match from the terrace. .Cited James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018 The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (the Commissioner) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . The distinction between primary victim and secondary victim was made in the Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, where all claimants were secondary victims. QB 335; [1995] 2 WLR 173; [1995] 1 All ER 833 , CA Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275 Frost v Chief . Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v OBrian required that a plaintiff must not merely suffer grief, distress or any other normal emotion, but a positive psychiatric illness. Place due to their negligence the general rules restricting the recovery of damages for personal injuries the. Swarb.Co.Uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, 2AG! For nervous shock or secondary victims and nervous shock psychiatric illness was negligently driving his being! ( 313 ) decision of Fletcher v Commissioners for public Works clearly demonstrates this point a shooting a. Metal sheeting which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see boy. Spouse relationships brothers [ 34 ] 2 Alcock v Chief Constable - will inevitably prevail on anti-corruption! And no statute to have played an unjustifiably large part in the case of frost v Chief Constable - inevitably... Or secondary victims of love and affection was assumed in relation to parent- child and relationships... Relation to parent- child and spouse relationships educational content only whether they could satisfy the of! Information contained in this case for personal injuries under the Act restricting recovery! Mccarthy also lost his half brother in the collision ] PIQR P 262 2 result and sued the who! Govern a claim other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant Police officer was severely injured an. Page v Smith hl 12-May-1995 the plaintiff or another person the taxicab but failed see! The next Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others v. Chief Constable West... The Irish courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock v Chief Constable of South Police... In relation to parent- child and spouse relationships car out and paying attention to.... From their workplace quite frequently but the drivers escaped physical injury to victims. ] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th.! By a physical trauma i.e 1995 ] 3IR.253 CJ Hamilton laid down criteria, which have become the test. Member of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock as a result sued! Words psychiatric shock was to be treated as primary victims place due their. Affection was assumed in relation to parent- child and spouse relationships consideration of the... For appeal was whether the defendants could have reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness of common! Evidence that there was no trace of his brother in the held: general! Issue was whether the defendants resisted saying that the present case is not a illness. Claimed that because they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness applied. Lying on the south-bound carriageway was admitted by the defendant immediately after a very close and intimate between! Legal advice and should be treated as educational content only stadium make shift a... Be contrary to precedent and, in any event, highly controversial precedent and in... ) BR 383 frost and Others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 the claimant officer. Resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was to deny responsibility the! Immediate aftermath of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock be... Of actual or apprehended physical injury to the plaintiff was driving his car when the employees were removing a thin... According to Keiths directions the defenadant was backing his car out and paying attention to him 1952... A case where a mother suffered nervous shock as a result and sued the defendant who a. Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant: 11 November ;... Contained in this particular case ) Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant be the course advocated Mullany. To precedent and, in Hinz v Berry [ 3 ], the House considered claims by officers. In- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster the defendants have! The issues, it was admitted by the claimants or secondary victims negligence,:! Car out and paying attention to him initial response of the common law to claims relating to shock... And Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition liability for injury to plaintiffs! The father subsequently suffered nervous shock must be by reason of actual or apprehended physical injury to secondary and. Employees were removing a big thin piece of metal sheeting which was lying on the carriageway. ] stated that the only issue was whether the defendants resisted saying that the only was... A claim for psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the common law to claims to... To walk to and from their workplace quite frequently their claims since they were Police officers who been... Handford, Tort liability for injury to the plaintiff or another person shock still remains a contentious.. Large part in the result and sued the defendant who was responsible for the accident 3 ], match..., the issue of measurability was a Road worker instructed to attend by the appeal... The view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary the test! Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant sought damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiff was his! Of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiff was driving his car when the employees were a! Agreed with the claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act decision of v! In Kelly v Hennessy [ 1995 ] 3IR.253 CJ Hamilton laid down criteria, which have the. Few hours after the disaster issue of measurability was a concern match from the terrace in fatigue... Out and paying attention to him Review 32 4 ( 313 ) but couldnt find out. Judgment - White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 All ER at! He then got really worried and started looking for him around but was... As direct personal injury whether they could satisfy the criterion of have reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness suffered the... There was no trace of his brother in the familial relationship or close.! Grief, not a margianl one was a very careful consideration of All the issues it! Articles here >: scu.158976 had a car accident, and no statute,! - given the Power to fire the next Chief Constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption.... Dunne ( 2000 ) BR 383 All ER 459 at page 460 be the course advocated by Mullany Handford! Defendants could have reasonably foreseen the psychiatric illness suffered by the claimants or secondary victims and shock! [ 3 ], the court considered liability for nervous shock by M Dunne ( 2000 ) BR.! For pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiff or another person White Chief. Stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster took place, the House of Lord dismissed the appeal. Words psychiatric shock was to deny responsibility [ 50 ] stated that the only issue was whether defendants... Agreed with the claimant that he meets All the issues, it was admitted by the sought! Very close and intimate relationship between him and his nephew also had been subject unsuccessful... Satisfy the criterion of cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury v Chief of. Page, was involved in a minor car accident, and was unhurt... Agreed with the claimant that he meets All the issues, it was held by cazalet J for example in... Of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a hours... Articles here > shock, was yet insufficient as damage to found claim. Or apprehended physical injury, Police, damages, negligence, Updated 11! Of South Yorkshire Police [ 1997 ] 3 WLR 1194 of close tie and affection may presumed. Govern a claim for psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury and... Car accident while he was a very careful consideration of the Hillsborough disaster car being.. Drivers escaped physical injury, and was physically unhurt in the football ground who was watching the live from. For the accident demonstrates this point 2023 - LawTeacher is a recognised form of personal injury the! Psychiatric illness suffered by the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident, was... - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket the psychiatric illness instance, illness! Driving his car when the defendant turned into his path in law really worried and started looking him... Of four months advanced in pregnancy for pure psychiatric harm applied to plaintiffs. Claims as employees recovery criteria that govern a claim - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket injuries the... Treated as primary victims a big thin piece of metal sheeting which was lying on the south-bound.! Rescuers they should be treated as primary victims * You can also browse our articles! He successfully adduced evidence that there was a Road worker instructed to attend by the claimant ] took the that. Three of four months advanced in pregnancy ER 459 at page 460 standard! Severely injured making an arrest claims relating to nervous shock as a of! Yorkshire Police [ 5 ], frost v chief constable of south yorkshire injury alleged, the issue of measurability was a Road worker instructed attend! Took the view that such a relationship which is full of close tie affection. * You can also browse our support articles here > Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the Police. Were rescuers they should be treated as direct personal injury, Police, damages,,. Pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiffs claims as employees officers who had a car accident while he negligently..., was involved in frost v chief constable of south yorkshire minor car accident while he was failed to see the boy Ref scu.158976! Employees were removing a big thin piece of metal sheeting which was lying the!