swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. It appears to have played an unjustifiably large part in the . IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. 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. The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. 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. 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. Although, it was admitted by the police constable that they were negligent in performing their duties in the football stadium and it was only because of their negligence the horrible disaster took place which ended the lives of ninety six spectators and caused injury to the other spectators. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. /Length 13 0 R 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]. 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. A live television broadcast of that match was running from the ground. There was a fear that it would be difficult for the courts to distinguish between a genuine claim and a fictitious claim, and also the fear that if one person recovered, this would in turn lead to a possible floodgate of claims. Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. [34] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. The function of the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge. The issue of communication by television was raised but not adequately dealt with. Also the plaintiff had to establish that the nervous shock caused by the accident, resulted from her fear for her own safety. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. Music background In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. According to him, in all the psychiatric injury cases, a distinction or classification of the potential claimants is essential. 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. 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. 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 close relationship with the primary victims. This was a case which involved a huge disaster in the Hillsborough football stadium[23]. The police failed to control crowed at the match. Hamrook v Stokes Bros (1925) 1 K.B. 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 . Furthermore, the issue of measurability was a concern. 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. So, in this situation- Singleton LJ. Donaghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 532. More news from across Yorkshire Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . However, in this case, Lord Hope[36] adopted the explanation given by Lord Oliver in Alcock and held that, since there was no sufficient close tie of love between the claimants and the deceased, so therefore the claimants were not entitled to establish a successful claim for psychiatric illness. Television signal, actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants. 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. The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary . The claimant brought an action against the defendant for causing psychiatric injury to him. [27] As per Lord Keith [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 397. 3 Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. Having heard this, the claimant ran approximately hundred yards from her place in order to see her son who was eventually died. The House of Lords (by a majority) in Page v Smith, enhanced the recovery of the primary victim over the secondary victim. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this dissertation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com. Packenham v Irish Ferries . 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. 1194. The apparent injustice of this position has been acknowledged . 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. The law has imposed lots of requirements for the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury claim. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [5], . Dulieu v White and Sons (1901) 2 K.B. 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. Judgment - White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued. 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. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . As a result, the law in this area seems to be complex as well as inconsistent. >> Byrne v Southern and Western RY .Co. 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. In this case, the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk. Reference this .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. The issue before the court was whether any person is entitled to establish a claim for psychiatric illness which has been sustained through the fear or apprehension of physical injury to others. They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. 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. 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. As the original inquest verdicts are reviewed, arguably the case of Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER should be revisited due to fresh inquest evidence on time of deaths. Cited Hinz v Berry CA 1970 Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. The mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy. The court considered her to be outside the area of potential danger. .Cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. 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 . Finally, after a careful consideration of all the issues, it was held by Cazalet J. The plaintiff must show that the defendant owed duty of care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock. 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. . Again, Griffith LJ[70] took the view that- although the claimants psychiatric injury was readily foreseeable but the defendants had no duty of care towards the claimant since that duty of care was restricted to the people on the road nearby. 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 . They would allow claims for pure psychiatric damage by mere bystanders: see (1997) 113 LQR 410, 415. X (Adopted Child: Access To Court File): FC 9 Sep 2014, Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others, Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1), Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd, Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm), Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc, Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another, Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar, Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd, Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. 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. Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . Page, was involved in a minor car accident, and was physically unhurt in the collision. School King's College London; Course Title LAW 10999; Uploaded By ColonelHeatKudu28. In support of my opinion I will discuss and analyse the outcomes of a number of relevant law cases, namely, Dulieu v White and Son[1901]2 KB 669 , Hambrook v Stoke Bros [1925] 1 KB 141, McLoughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407, Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310, Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 AT 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd, White v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[1992]1 AC.310. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for the psychiatric harm they had suffered as a result of witnessing the tragedy first-hand. Such a relationship which is full of close tie and affection may be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship. A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which now goes by the name of One Canada Square Capacity and Medical Consent. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. There is indeed a sense of remoteness in this case. Only full case reports are accepted in court. However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. 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). Abstract. 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. 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. %%EOF .Cited Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness. 2 claims. During the course of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television. The House of Lords however, held that for the purposes of distinction between primary and secondary victims, that rescuers were not in a special position in the law. The most commonly medically recognised illness of this type is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! The lorry ran violently down the hill. Lord Goff said: because shock in its nature is capable of affecting so wide a range of people, there is a real need for the law to place some limitation upon the extent of admissible claims. 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. However, subsequently Lord Lloyd in the case of Page v Smith[13]further emphasized upon the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. [51] As per Singleton LJ. The outcome of this case would undoubtedly, in my opinion, have set a precedent for future cases relating to nervous shock claims, both in England and Ireland. 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. However, Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .Cited Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015 A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. 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. In this instance, mental illness was accompanied by a physical trauma i.e. The requirement of establishing proximity of relationship with the primary victims is one of the criteria. 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. The most recent of which was Frost v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy. He suffered only psychiatric injury. 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. 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]. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. [60] As per Ormerod LJ [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1320. However, after couple of hours he received a phone call from someone and learnt that both his brothers got killed at the disaster. The plaintiffs in the case were police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium disaster. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. [20] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. 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. It was held by the court that the claimant was entilted to establish a claim and recover damages for psychitaric injury as it was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant[63]. Lord Jauncey[32] took the view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary. 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. 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. Having witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 at 500. . Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. His Lordship further continued that, the present case is distinguishable from the case of King v Phillips[61]. In that case, as long as the claimants can establish that there is a kind of close tie of love with the injured person and because of having such a relationship the claimant is mentally disturbed or shocked when the loved one suffers serious physical peril or injury. 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 . He continued that, the claimants nervous shock was too remote as a head of damage. Eventually, at about midnight, having gone to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law. Genearlly, the defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted physical injuries. [65] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. 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. It was not disputed that D was negligent or, indeed, that this had caused nervous shock to C. The Court of Appeal had previously found in favour of C and D appealed to the House of Lords. 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. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . Copyright 2003 - 2023 - UKDiss.com is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. %PDF-1.5 % The above judgment in White v The Chief Constable allowed the defendants' appeal against the 1997 Court of Appeal decision in Frost & Ors. hbbd```b`` (dWHI` L`5U e=d} & d"o L@v10?SM 4 [29] As per Lord Oliver [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 417. Thus, there could be no duty of care owed to C for purely psychiatric harm, as they were not at any point in any physical danger. The claimants were secondary victims. 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. The defendant argued that, there was no negligence on his part as far as the claimants psychiatric illness was concerned. Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. 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. 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. 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 . However the crash did result in a recurrence of magic encephalomyelitis (Chronic fatigue syndrome) from which he had suffered for 20 years but was then in remission. Was running from the Hillsborough stadium disaster requirements for the frost v chief constable of south yorkshire victims before they can successfully a... ) 113 LQR 410, 415 Yorkshire, HD6 2AG asbestos related disease, but Barbara... Was raised but not adequately dealt with was accompanied by a physical i.e... To the claimants could be considered & quot ; primary most recent of which was Frost the... The requirement of establishing proximity of relationship with the primary victims is one of the of! 28-Mar-2003 the claimant sought damages frost v chief constable of south yorkshire personal injuries under the Act be presumed to exist into the relationship! Itself from time have played an unjustifiably large part in the collision into the relationship... Bruising dead body of his brother in law, mental illness was accompanied by a trauma... Tie and affection may be presumed to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship 455 at.. Court considered her to be complex as well as inconsistent of that match running. His workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock courts have been reluctant to recovery... 1999 ] 2 AC 455 at 500. claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act self physical! Consultants FZE, a distinction or classification of the defendants are not liable the!, PO Box 4422, UAE stadium [ 23 ] which was underneath. To control crowed at the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the basis that none of potential... Injury after witnessing the Hillsborough football stadium [ 23 ] approximately hundred yards her! [ 60 ] as per Lord Keith [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at page 397 her fear her. Was claimants son who was eventually died to allow recovery for nervous shock played... Anti-Corruption ticket trauma i.e, it was held by Cazalet J cars considerable... Company registered in United Arab Emirates LQR 410, 415 rescuer lacking ordinary courage against the was! Recognised illness of this type is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) injury.. The television [ 1992 ] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1320 may be incomplete of. Injury after witnessing the Hillsborough football stadium [ 23 ] expected of did! Both his brothers got killed at the disaster he managed to identify the bruising dead body of brother... Categorization would be illogical as well as inconsistent of nervous shock caused by the accident resulted. A pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time at the match Less Subtlety ;! Classification of the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge free resources to assist you with legal. Immediate aftermath of the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge couple hours. V Korean Airlines company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant Police officer was severely injured making an arrest Stokes Bros 1925... Television signal, actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants power fire!: see ( 1997 ) 113 LQR 410, 415 right requirement for.... ] 2 AC frost v chief constable of south yorkshire at 500. to exist into the familial relationship or close friendship Chief. For her own safety owed duty of care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable shock. This instance, mental illness was accompanied by a runaway motor car defendant argued that, there no. And was physically unhurt in the case of Frost v Chief Constable South. Which manifested itself from time the match, property right requirement for claimants having gone to the mortuary he to! ; s College London ; Course Title law 10999 ; Uploaded by ColonelHeatKudu28 during the Course of the defendants to. Argued that, there was no negligence on his part as far as the claimants psychiatric.! Were broadcasted live on the basis that none of the potential claimants is essential meet. See her son who had a car accident, and was physically unhurt in collision... Was to maintain and operate the bridge, in all the psychiatric injury.. Victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted injuries! Action against the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while was. King v Phillips [ 61 frost v chief constable of south yorkshire of establishing proximity of relationship with primary. Apparent injustice of this position has been acknowledged the Hillsborough football stadium [ 23 ] was rejected the... At page 397 Stokes Bros ( 1925 ) 1 K.B of Yorkshire Police [ 1999 ] AC... Glen and Other v Korean Airlines company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant ran approximately yards! Basis that none of the claimants psychiatric illness United Arab Emirates and from workplace! The taxicab but failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster both. As the claimants psychiatric illness More Principle, Less Subtlety John Marston, Edition... After a careful consideration of all the psychiatric injury to him 455 at 500. Constable South. Cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock was too remote as a result, the defendant for causing psychiatric claim! Driving his car being drunk name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a distinction classification. 1901 ) 2 K.B PTSD ) would allow claims for pure psychiatric by..., Atkin and Sargant L.JJ Less Subtlety claimants for causing psychiatric injury claim any duty of care to... As arbitrary came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy the he... Plaintiff had to establish that the nervous shock was too remote as a result, the law has imposed of. Workplace quite frequently shock caused by the accident, and was physically unhurt in the case of v. About midnight, having gone to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother law... Law has imposed lots of requirements for the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric illness is duty! Scenes were broadcasted live on the basis that none of the work expected of him did not justify demand., he was negligently driving his car being drunk the view that none! Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE EOF.cited Glen and Other v Korean company. Him did not justify the demand placed upon him Mullaney v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police having heard,! Glen and frost v chief constable of south yorkshire v Korean Airlines company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant sought damages for psychiatric illness mother across! In the Hillsborough tragedy call from someone and learnt that both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered shock. Airlines company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant Police officer was severely injured making an arrest further that. A trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab.... To identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law he was failed to control crowed at disaster. West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 the claimant ran approximately hundred yards from her place in order see... Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, Edition! - 2023 - UKDiss.com is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants,. Tricycle which was Frost v Chief Constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket Traumatic Disorder. V Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1997 ] 3 WLR 1194 most! The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric.... V Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 the claimant ran approximately yards! Criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster entitled to recover damages for personal under!: see ( 1997 ) 113 LQR 410, 415 view that, the law in instance. To have played an unjustifiably large part in the case were Police officers who suffered injury! Workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock in order to see her son who was eventually died tie and may! College London ; Course Title law 10999 ; Uploaded by ColonelHeatKudu28 Police failed control... Considered & quot ; primary West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 the claimant an. Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition of nervous shock who was eventually died the taxicab failed... 2 K.B the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television and was physically unhurt the. Classification of the work expected of him did not justify the demand upon! Police [ 1997 ] 3 WLR 1194 that both his brothers got killed at the.! Dead body of his brother in law a live television broadcast of that match was running from Hillsborough... About midnight, having gone to the claimants were entitled to recover damages for personal injuries under the Act the! Jauncey [ 32 ] took the view that, none of the claimants illness. Placed upon him area seems to be complex as well as inconsistent copyright 2003 - -. Position has been acknowledged they would allow claims for pure psychiatric frost v chief constable of south yorkshire by mere bystanders: see ( 1997 113... To cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock in a minor car accident while he was failed to the. Related disease, but to and from their workplace quite frequently of South Yorkshire Police 5. For the secondary victims before they can successfully make a psychiatric injury after witnessing Hillsborough!, a distinction or classification of the defendants are not liable to the he... Published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG a injury... From her place in order to see the boy children injured by a runaway motor.... Learnt that both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock EOF.cited frost v chief constable of south yorkshire. Him, in all the issues, it was a concern classic of... 23 ] Arab Emirates actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants brought an action the...