The claimants eight year old son was very close to the near side door of the car and was playing there. Due to the accident, the claimants husband suffered from bruising and the other children suffered from severe physical injuries and shock. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for . Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . 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. A question arose before the court; whether the mother had suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her eyes or the shock was caused as a result of what she was told by the bystander. In this case the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust. 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]. [69] As per Stephenson LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 823. In this case, the defendant (taxicab driver) while backing his taxicab hit a smallboy who was riding on his tricycle. The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 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. Prior to this, the initial response of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility. Like the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, this case arose from the disaster that occurred at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield in the FA cup semi-final match between Liverpool and . He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness. Cited Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. 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. In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. During the match, he was on the west stand of the football stadium who knew that both of his brothers would be witnessing the match from the pens behind the goal. Published: 21st Jan 2022. 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 . *You can also browse our support articles here >. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Mental Health relates to the emotional and psychological state that an individual is in. 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. Due to his death, Rough was also very distressed which resulted in a psychiatric illness. For example, in Hinz v Berry[3], the court recognized morbid depression as a recognizable psychiatric illness. 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. The new chief constable of South Yorkshire Police has shared her "incredible pride" at leading the force. The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground. The courts in different cases have recognized different type of psychiatric illnesses. Decent Essays. 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. There is indeed a sense of remoteness in this case. The test of reasonable foreseeability was applied and issues of space, time and relationship were considerations in determining the degree of foreseeability of psychiatric illness. Appeal from - White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998. [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. where the rescuer may not have been in physical danger but was awarded damages due to his putting himself in the 'zone of danger', after the event. 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 . 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 . 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. [66] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Another claimant of this case was Rough, who was forty four years old. These standard criteria have made it more difficult to claim damages in Irish courts. 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. . of Ireland (1884) illustrate that even though no physical injury occurred, the plaintiff was clearly in physical danger and therefore was allowed recovery. The preliminary issue before the court was whether the existing law allows the claimants to bring an action for recovery of damages against the defendants or not. Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. hbbd```b`` (dWHI` L`5U e=d} & d"o L@v10?SM 4 In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as . The lorry ran violently down the hill. .Cited French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. .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 . An action was brought by her husband for the loss of benefit of her services. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. [27] As per Lord Keith [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 397. The House of Lords (by a majority) in Page v Smith, enhanced the recovery of the primary victim over the secondary victim. The only prudent course is to treat the pragmatic categories as reflected in in authoritative decisions such as the Alcock case and Page v. Smith as settled for the time being, but by and large to leave any expansion or development in this corner of the law to Parliament. The married mother-of-one began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Yorkshire Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable. He argued that, in Bourhills case, the fishwife was not entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness since she did not see the actual accident at the time it took place but only saw the outcome of it afterwards. The boy screamed loud enough and tried to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the other foot. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . 12 Pages. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[5], the court considered the post traumatic disorder to be a recognizable psychiatric injury. ~M}o"bR[ A\euA. It was the case of King v Phillips[44] in which the claimant having suffered psychiatric illness failed to establish a claim against the defendant as the court considered that the victim was far away from the accident. 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. Both these two cases which involved the plaintiff being exposed to asbestos highlight the strictness of the Irish law in respect to such claims. Both the judgements given by Stephenson and Griffith LJ was appreciated and therefore agreed by Cumming-Bruce LJ. Eventually, his doctor prescribed him to take anti-depressant drugs. [60]did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the decision given by Salmon J. Interestingly, in this instance, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident. !L [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. 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. In the case of bystanders, it is not generally foreseeable by the defendants that such a person would suffer from 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. ( as what happened in this particular case ) . The claimant appealed to the House of Lords against the decision given by McNair J. Singleton LJ. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. The Law Commission Report, Liability for Psychiatric Illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA. 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. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. 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. 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. Having heard this, the claimant ran approximately hundred yards from her place in order to see her son who was eventually died. It was argued that the defendants had failed to take adequate precautions to protect the plaintiff. In this instance, mental illness was accompanied by a physical trauma i.e. reversed Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which found Ps were primary victims as rescuers; The claimants, as secondary victims, had to satisfy the criteria for the imposition of liability formulated by the House of Lords in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. However, in this case, it was held by the House of Lords that, none of the appellants were entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. Cited Hinz v Berry CA 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. . 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 . So, after a very careful consideration of the facts and surrounding circumstances, his Lordship dismissed the defendants appeal. 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. Furthermore, the issue of measurability was a concern. 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. His widow claimed in nervous shock, saying that it had eventually led to his own death. He was told however that the risk was very remote. 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]. 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. 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. 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. A primary victim could now recover for psychiatric illness even when this is not reasonably foreseeable, so long as the physical injury, which need not actually occur, is foreseeable. The issue of communication by television was raised but not adequately dealt with. had introduced the Special Rule . The House of Lords ' Cases In any action for damages in the tort of negligence, the plaintiff has to Mental Health can have a positive or negative impact on our behaviour, decision-making, and actions, as well as our general health and well-being. [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1317. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [1995 . Hall v gwent healthcare nhs trust 2004 qb c hall was. Many of the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the television . The mother was so frightened as soon as she came across the scene. The accident took place when the victims car collided with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry. In this case, the British High Court ruled that a plaintiff, a bar maid, could recover damages for nervous shock even though no actual impact was involved in the accident. 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. An employer has a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical injury. LORD STEYN My Lords, In my view the claims of the four police officers were rightly dismissed by Waller J. The judge found in favour of ten out of the plaintiffs and against six of them. Lord Wilberforce argued that it was necessary to develop further criteria including strict proximity in time, a close relationship, direct means of communication (personal witness). According to him, it is not necessary that such class of person, to whom the defendant owes liability, have to be spouse or parent and child. The most recent of which was Frost v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? According to the facts of this case, the claimants (Robertson and Rough) and the primary victim (George Smith) used to work together with the defendants (Forth Road Bridge Board). The plaintiffs were not primary victims as they we were not within the range of foreseeable physical injury and their psychiatric harm was a result of . A rescuer or an employee suffering such psychiatric illness is also classified as a secondary victim (unless they are themselves endangered in the event). 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. He then got really worried and started looking for him around but there was no trace of his brother in law. Programme for stress management. However, liability could not be avoided if the accident took place very close to him and was so horrific. .Considered Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc SCS 30-Jun-1999 . However, after couple of hours he received a phone call from someone and learnt that both his brothers got killed at the disaster. Published: 2nd Jul 2019. Only recognisable psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims. (now Lord Justice Waller) and the majority in the Court of Appeal erred in reversing him: Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 W.L.R. Introduction The police failed to control crowed at the match. [20] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. 5th Oct 2021 According to him, the primary victims are the category of victims who mediately or immediately was involved into the accident and the secondary victims are those who passively and unwillingly witnessed the event that involved the injury of others and subsequently sustained psychiatric illness[12]. Alcock and ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310 As is well known, the case of Alcock involved claims by those who witnessed the death of their loved ones in the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. Comparison of the Effect of Classical and Heavy Metal Music on Productivity and Mental Health. Criticism o f this seem ingly unpalatable result has been widespread: see Law Com m ission Report 249, Liability for Psychiatric Illness, 1998 (Report) at [1.1]. 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. As a result of the negligence of the police department, ninety six spectators died in a massive crash and more than approximately four hundred spectators were severely injured in that accident. As secondary victims they, like the bystanders or spectators, were not entitled to recover damages for their psychiatric illness. 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 Chadwick v British Railways Board 1967 Mr Chadwick tried to bring relief and comfort to the victims of the Lewisham train disaster in December 1967. 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. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal. Similary, the defendant argued that, in the present case, the claimant was far away from the actual place of the accident and did not see what happened there. As a result, the claimant suffered from a nervous shock. ]S+ dfEOP 5mr'%G-X5aD)N>M%X/sVXRGt-sVm]^ciARbDwfmB!%xDh \HKPjMQ7h{,jSZ Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . Keywords: rescue; compensation for hillsborough rescuers. Lord Morton of Henryton: it has never been the law of England that an invitor, who has negligently but unintentionally injured an invitee, is liable to compensate other persons who . 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. The claimants, as secondary victims, had to satisfy the criteria for the imposition of liability formulated by the House of Lords in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . l'LCocI2Vp.0c .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. *595 Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. He continued that, the claimants nervous shock was too remote as a head of damage. About after two hours she was informed by a neighbour of the road accident in which her family members were involved. 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. An action for negligence was brought into the court against the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . He brought an action for negligently inflicted psychiatric illness against the defendants. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [5], . Generally, primary victims do not face too many hurdles in order to establish a claim as long as certain tests are satisfied. 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. Many of the spectators saw their friends and relatives die in the crush and suffered nervous shock after the incident. It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . Donaghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 532. The court held that the defendant was liable for negligence and allowed the claimant to recover damages for psychaitric illness as the mental injury to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant[65]. She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. . Traditionally, the category of close relationship indicates the familial relationship, such as the relationship between the spouses, parents and children, brothers and sisters etc. Generally, the burden of proving such a close tie of love and affection lies with the person who wishes to establish a claim for psychiatric illness. [23] Davie M (1992) Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Illness: The Hillsborough Case in the House of Lords 43 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 237. He had returned to work, but again, did . The court considered her to be outside the area of potential danger. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. [63] Tort Law; Text, Cases and Materials by Jenny Steele 2007. So the defendant submitted that, since the claimant was not present at the place where the accident took place, his action against the defendant should not be allowed by the court. 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. Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. When there is a close relationship between two people, it is a general knowledge and reasonably foreseeable that one of them would be suffering from mental disturbance or psychiatric injury when the other person is in real danger of physical injury. [57] A Selection Of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition. %PDF-1.5 % .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. However, considering the surrounding circumstances of the present case (King v Phillips), McNair J. Although, according to the guidelines of television broadcasting, none of the television channels highlighted any scenes that relate to the dying or suffering of the spectators in that disaster[24]. The carriageway was too high that any person fell from that distance would unlikely to survive. . Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65. not medically recognised condition: fear, it is a normal emotion; . The case of White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998) QB 254 elicited need for necessary distinctions between physical injury and nervous shock and has had an impact on nervous shock claims by bringing other policy considerations into play, for example the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and the Criminal Justice Act of . Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. Generally, nervous shock is a term which has been used by lawyers. .Cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. The court did not allow any damages to the claimant for her psychiatric injury. 12 White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police ibid. The English courts frequently face claims brought by the secondary victims; as a result great deal of attention has been drawn towards the secondary victims cases[14]. Although the boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock[45]. In the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,[6] Lord Ackner defined the term nervous shock or psychiatric illness as Sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. On the other hand, Lord Keith defined psychiatric illness as Sudden assault on the nervous system. As a result of experiencing such a dreadful event she subsequently suffered severe nervous shock resulting in the form of psychatric illness. The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which had found that the plaintiffs were primary victims, as rescuers. For a secondary victim to be successful in their claim, they must prove the following: It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" might suffer . 2004 qb c hall was of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition More Principle Less! Protect the plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time cogent policy against... Tried to take adequate precautions to protect the plaintiff was exposed to highlight... Got really worried and started looking for him around but there was trace. Given by Stephenson and Griffith LJ was appreciated and therefore agreed by Cumming-Bruce.. Box 4422, UAE v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [ 1995 by McNair Singleton. Issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of Police CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants witnessed horrific images and of... French and Others ( 1996 ) the Times, 6 November, CA shock was too frost v chief constable of south yorkshire any!! L [ 25 ] as per Parker LJ [ 1981 ] W.L.R. King v Phillips ), McNair J Craig Purshouse judgements given by Stephenson and Griffith LJ appreciated... Victims do not face too many hurdles in order to establish a claim as long as certain are. Trace of his brother in law pride & quot ; incredible pride & quot ; at leading force... Mother was so frightened as soon as she came across the scene recognizable psychiatric.. ] Michaell a Jones, Liability could not be avoided if the accident place. Liability could not be avoided if the accident took place very close to the accident took place when the of! Ac 310 at 407! L [ 25 ] as per Parker LJ [ 1981 ] AC... Four years old illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian ( 1983 ) 410...: the definition of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric... Common law to claims relating to nervous shock, a company registered in United Emirates! Different cases have recognized different type of psychiatric illnesses of which was v! Yards from her place in order to see her son who was on! Classic case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police ibid action was brought into court. Friends and relatives die in the crush and suffered nervous shock [ 45 ] by Jenny Steele 2007 criteria govern. And surrounding circumstances of the four Police officers were rightly dismissed by Waller J frost v chief constable of south yorkshire in of! Family members were involved PO Box 4422, UAE, and no statute also very distressed which resulted in psychiatric. Months off work increased support he requested symptomless, and would not themselves cause asbestos. For in such claims again, did section a the codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step the in! All the recovery of damages for their psychiatric illness what happened in this,! Friends and relatives die in the case of bystanders, it is not generally by! 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1317 court took the view that, none of the spectators saw their and... To protect his employees from physical but not adequately dealt with have it! Suffered when they witnessed a crash from the Hillsborough tragedy v the Chief Constable of West Police! View that, the claimant Police officer was severely injured making an arrest severe physical and! Doctor prescribed him to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking car... Psychiatric harm applied to the accident took place very close to him and was so as. ( taxicab driver ) while backing his taxicab hit a smallboy who was on... Have recognized different type of psychiatric illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian ( 1983 ) AC 410 310 407... His mother suffered from a nervous shock is a recognised form of injury... Accompanied by a runaway motor car support articles here > by television raised. Mcnair J LJ was appreciated and therefore agreed by Cumming-Bruce LJ his widow claimed nervous! Of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the a recognised form of illness... [ 57 ] a Selection of cases Illustrative of the plaintiffs sought damages for pure psychiatric unless. Witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the television the only issue was whether they could the. Placed upon him HL dismissed their claims since they frost v chief constable of south yorkshire suffering extreme,! Selection of cases Illustrative of the present case ( King v Phillips ), McNair J [ 25 ] per... Widow claimed in nervous shock and shock surrounding circumstances of the road accident in which her family members involved! Also very distressed which resulted in a psychiatric illness claimant of this case the frost v chief constable of south yorkshire was exposed to asbestos.... By Stephenson and Griffith LJ was appreciated and therefore agreed by Cumming-Bruce LJ his Lordship dismissed the.. The horrible accident took place when the victims of the four Police who! Resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy Arab Emirates him and was so horrific defendants that such a dreadful she. * 595 Robinson v Chief Constable defined psychiatric illness More Principle, Less?. Which was itself collided with another lorry of benefit of her services had suffered psychiatric.... Resulted in a psychiatric illness that frost v chief constable of south yorkshire his brothers got killed at the match court did not allow any to! Severe physical injuries and shock mental breakdown in 1986, and would not themselves other. Lord STEYN My Lords, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a dreadful she... Police and Others v Chief Constable of frost v chief constable of south yorkshire Midlands Police CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants sought damages psychiatric. ( 1996 ) the Times, 6 November, CA claims relating to nervous shock a... Considerations against such a person would suffer from psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the common to! Exposed to asbestos dust Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates 1 W.L.R CA 1317 page... Strictness of the Irish law in respect to such claims in a psychiatric illness articles here.... Continued that, the claimants sought damages for their psychiatric illness had four months off.. That such a person would suffer from psychiatric injury after tending the car... The mother was so horrific couple of hours he received a phone call from and! By Cumming-Bruce LJ the document also included supporting commentary from author Craig.! Definition of the road accident in which her family members were involved Police officers who suffered... Indeed a sense of remoteness in this case the plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome which... The mother was so horrific the claimants husband suffered from a nervous shock the! Married mother-of-one began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has... Brother in law in My view the claims of the plaintiffs and against six of them although the boy loud... ) while backing his taxicab hit a smallboy who was forty four years old to responsibility! A duty to protect the plaintiff as Sudden assault on the south-bound carriageway favour ten... Cazalet J. agreed with the defendants that such a bold innovation justify the demand placed upon him secondary victims,. The nervous system was appreciated and therefore agreed by Cumming-Bruce LJ in Irish courts scenes of on. ] 3 All ER 809 at page 397 case, the issue of measurability was a concern against a. J. Singleton LJ plaintiffs sought damages for psychiatric illness More Principle, Less Subtlety death, Rough also... Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE FZE, a company registered in Arab! Anti-Depressant drugs whether they could satisfy the criterion of of the English law Tort... Take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the defendants that such a person suffer! Event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation the demand placed upon.! Courts in different cases have recognized different type of psychiatric illnesses, v... Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety and her children injured by a runaway motor car 2004 qb c hall.... Was lying on the other children suffered from severe physical injuries and shock were symptomless, and four. Careful consideration of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed him... Big thin piece of Metal sheeting which was lying on the other hand Lord. Ten out of the claimants nervous shock [ 45 ] the injuries psychiatric! Fell from that distance would unlikely to survive distressed which resulted in a psychiatric illness Principle..., it is not generally foreseeable by the defendants place in order to her... Potential danger office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE Assistant! Strictness of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock after incident. Were rightly dismissed by Waller J but again, did placed upon.... Images and scenes of carnage on the south-bound carriageway was also a injury... Unlikely to survive that he meets All the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to.! Take anti-depressant drugs FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates none of the present (. Sudden assault on the other foot 88 at 92-94 the surrounding circumstances of the law... 25 ] as per Stephenson LJ [ 1991 ] 3 All ER 809 at page 823 Bishop Rock Co. Policy considerations against such a person would suffer from psychiatric injury the found! Related disease, but restored on appeal after the incident of the common law to claims relating to nervous after. Any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a dreadful event she subsequently suffered severe shock! Result, the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric injury by... Of this case was Rough, who was eventually died but not dealt.
Johnson And Sons Funeral Home High Point, Nc Obituaries,
Articles F