Hall v gwent healthcare nhs trust 2004 qb c hall was. ~M}o"bR[ A\euA. The victims were taken to the nearest hospital by that neighbour. The Court of Appeal in Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194 (by a majority) had held that the police officers who were allowed to recover for their psychiatric illness as a result of carrying out their professional duties as rescuers and/or employees at the disastrous Hillsborough football stadium stampede were classifiable as primary victims. Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. Eventually, his doctor prescribed him to take anti-depressant drugs. Published: 21st Jan 2022. However, Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ. 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. Baker v Bolton [1808] EWHC KB J92. [1981] 1 All ER 809. Having studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons. He submitted that the court must take into account the decision given by the House of Lords in the case of Bourhill v Young[59]before reaching its final decision in the present case. 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]. On the otherhand, the defendant admitted that he was negligent in relation to the accident of the boy but he denied any kind of liability or duty of care towards the claimant as far as her psychiatric injury was concerned. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. Having witnessed the accident, the claimant later suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. [19] As per Lord Wilberforce [1883] 1 A.C. 410 at Page 411. 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. They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA. As a result, the claimant suffered from a nervous shock. The Facts. 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. 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. Packenham v Irish Ferries . .Cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown. It was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that the claimant would suffer any kind of mental damage in such a way. While Robertson was driving the van, Smith was sitting on top of the metal sheet. Prior to the Page v Smith case it was assumed that reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric illness was required in all cases of negligently inflicted psychiatric illness and that all such plaintiffs must be persons of normal disposition.. 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. Held: . 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. Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . [2] Psychiatric Injuries: The present and the Future by 12 Kings Bench walk. 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. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 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. Again, there was neither any duty of care towards the claimant not to inflict any kind of physical injury or harm to himself nor there was any duty to the claimant not to cause him psychiatric injury by means of exposing him to the sight of the defendants self-inflicted injuries[40]. Decent Essays. 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. 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. View examples of our professional work here. About after two hours she was informed by a neighbour of the road accident in which her family members were involved. The Court of Appeal held that no claim could be brought by a secondary victim for psychiatric injury caused by a separate horrific event removed in time from the original negligence, accident or first horrific event. Many of the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the television . The apparent injustice of this position has been acknowledged . Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. According to him, in all the psychiatric injury cases, a distinction or classification of the potential claimants is essential. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found in favour of all but one of the officers. Evidence Law - Admissibility of Evidence Essays. Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. Prior to this, the initial response of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . l'LCocI2Vp.0c That is to say, the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with the primary victims. [17] took the view that, the mother suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her own eyes, not because of what she learnt from a bystander. He brought an action for negligently inflicted psychiatric illness against the defendants. Anxiety v stress. CJ Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath. endstream endobj 165 0 obj <> endobj 166 0 obj <>/MediaBox[0 0 594.72 841.68]/Parent 162 0 R/Resources<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI]>>/Rotate 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page>> endobj 167 0 obj <>stream 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 . 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). .if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. 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. The police failed to control crowed at the match. However, considering the surrounding circumstances of the present case (King v Phillips), McNair J. Although there was a big age difference between them but they had been working together for many years. This principle was later applied in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Generally, primary victims do not face too many hurdles in order to establish a claim as long as certain tests are satisfied. 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. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. 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 . In this case the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust. During a major football match in the Hillsborough ground, one part of the football stadium was crashed because the South Yorkshire police allowed an excessively large number of spectators in that part of the stadium which was already full. Cases Referenced. 2 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. 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. Cited Hinz v Berry CA 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. However, the decision in the case of Dooley V Cammen Laird preserved the distinction between primary and secondary victim. II. v The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police ( [1997]1 All E R.540), their Lordships holding by a majority of 3 to 2 that the claims of the police officers had been rightly dismissed by the trial judge . The chief constable of South Yorkshire police told junior officers four days after the Hillsborough disaster that Liverpool football club supporters should be blamed for causing the deaths, 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. 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. The plaintiffs in the case were police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium disaster. [34] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. As soon as she arrived to the hospital, she was informed that her youngest daughter was killed. The defenadant appealed against the decision of Salmon J. 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. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA . Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . 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. In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. The present law in this area seems to be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims. 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. 34 [1996] 1 AC 155. Donaghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 532. ( as what happened in this particular case ) . 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. [58] As per Salmon J. 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 . This was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned. The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. 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. 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. Genearlly, the defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted physical injuries. Page, was involved in a minor car accident, and was physically unhurt in the collision. His widow claimed in nervous shock, saying that it had eventually led to his own death. 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.

Ffxi Uleguerand Range Home Points, George Bluegrass Festival, Articles F