The victims were taken to the nearest hospital by that neighbour. D was under a duty to take reasonable steps to protect his employees from the risk of physical harm, but there was no extension of this duty to protect C from psychiatric harm when they were not exposed to any risk of physical injury. Abstract. CJ Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath. It was held by Salmon J. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for . Moreover, Denning LJ[55] took the view that, the defendant was under a duty of care to the boy where there was a breach of that duty of care, but as far as the claimants nervous shock was concerned, it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that the claimant could be suffered from a nervous shock as a result of the accident. Having witnessed the accident, the claimant later suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. 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. At common law the secondary victims (like the bystanders or spectators) who suffer psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing a defendant negligently endangering or injuring others who are unrelated to them in love and affection, cannot recover. Hall v gwent healthcare nhs trust 2004 qb c hall was. 223 0 obj <>stream However, an action for psychatric injury was brought by the claimant against the defendant and the owners of the garage[57]. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. In this instance police officers were seeking compensation on the basis that they had suffered psychiatric illness as a result of rescuing victims after the crush. Lord Jauncey[32] took the view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary. 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. 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 . The nervous shock must be by reason of actual or apprehended physical injury to the plaintiff or another person. For example, in Hinz v Berry[3], the court recognized morbid depression as a recognizable psychiatric illness. No issues of. [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1317. Finally, after a careful consideration of all the issues, it was held by Cazalet J. [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. The defendant police service had not . Rough was also driving another van from a few feet behind the Robersons van. Sixteen separate actions were brought against him by persons none of whom was present in the area where the disaster occurred, although four of them were elsewhere in the ground. But the fact of the present case must be considered in accordance with the decision of Bourhill v Young[54] where the House of Lords provided the test-if the defendant have reasonably foreseen any damage to the claimant then he owes a duty of care and liable for negligently causing personal damage. At the trial, Branson J. took the opinion that, the claimant will not be entitled to establish a claim for nervous shock and recover any kind of damages if she had not suffered the shock through the fear of her own safety. !L It was the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,[11]where Lord Oliver for the first time drew the attention to the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiffs claims as employees. 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. Both of them used to go out for drink once a week. 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. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [5], . That is to say, the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with the primary victims. 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. Interestingly, it was also stated the purpose of the visit was to identify the body and not to aid the injured or rescue victims as in other compensation cases. [15] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). 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. Cited McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. hbbd```b`` (dWHI` L`5U e=d} & d"o L@v10?SM 4 [40] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition: Publication date 2004. 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. 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 . 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. The claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the course of his employment. . Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA . Programme for stress management. [1952] 2 All ER 459 at page 460. 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. There are a number of subsequent case examples where the English courts have adhered to the requirement of close tie of love and affection as established in the Alcock case. The claimant argued that the defendant was under a duty of care to drive his taxicab carefully not to inflict any kind of physical and emotional damage to the people. Another appellant, namely Mr. Robert Alcock, was present in the stadium and lost his brother in law but still failed in his action as it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendants that he would suffer psychiatric illness. [1] Nicolas N (2002), A Remedy for Nervous Shock or Psychiatric Harm- Who Pays?-Volume 9, Number 4. [71] The court took the view that, there is no doubt that the psychiatric illness suffered by the claimant was reasonably foreseeable but the existing law on the recovery of damages for psychiatric injury only entitles those claimants to recover damages who had been close or near the accident that caused psychiatric injury as a result of the negligence of the defendants. Music background 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 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. .Cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown. . 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. 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 . Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. 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 . 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. [1999] 2 AC 455. The plaintiff worried excessively and developed reactive anxiety neurosis, a psychiatric illness. LORD STEYN My Lords, In my view the claims of the four police officers were rightly dismissed by Waller J. 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]. 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. Before discussing the above cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of the term nervous shock and its history. White v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509. [39] As per Cazalet LJ. This was a case which involved a huge disaster in the Hillsborough football stadium[23]. %%EOF Donaghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 532. (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. 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. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . But that would be contrary to precedent and, in any event, highly controversial. [27] As per Lord Keith [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 397. .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. .Cited Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008 The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. 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. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. The claimants eight year old son was very close to the near side door of the car and was playing there. The court took the view that, none of the claimants were entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness. 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. Eventually, at about midnight, having gone to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law. 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. The Irish courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock. Only full case reports are accepted in court. The claimant brought an action against the defendant for causing psychiatric injury to him. The claimant appealed against the decision of the trial judge to the Court of Appeal. As a result of experiencing such a dreadful event she subsequently suffered severe nervous shock resulting in the form of psychatric illness. 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. See para 1.5 n 14 below. if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Cited by: Cited Keen v Tayside Contracts OHCS 26-Feb-2003 The claimant sought damages for post traumatic stress disorder. 3 Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. It appears in analysing this case that the House of Lords were conscious of the judgment made in the Alcock case. 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). Music has historically been a key player in society and personal life. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . Furthermore, the issue of measurability was a concern. 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. [60]did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the decision given by Salmon J. [63] Tort Law; Text, Cases and Materials by Jenny Steele 2007. The reason for such unwillingness might be presumed that- the ordinary bystanders must be assumed to have sufficient strength or courage to undergo the calamities of modern life. To satisfy physical proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath might be considered as another major obstacle for the secondary victims where there is an issue of establishing a claim for the psychiatric illness. The defendant admitted that they were negligent in relation to the death of her daughter as well as injury to her rest of the family members but simply denied any kind of liabilty for negligently causing psychiatric injury to her. According to him it was a matter of common sense that-the defendant while backing his taxicab have not reasonably foreseen any personal injury to the claimant who witnessed an accident and suffered nervous shock from a house some seventy to eighty yards away up a side street. [65] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. *You can also browse our support articles here >. If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! He further took the view that, the cases where there is insufficient proximity of relationship must be very carefully considered before allowing the claimants for psychiatric injury claims[20]. During this period in society there was a view that people of strong moral character did not succumb to their emotions. The 2003 decision of Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point. According to Lord Ackner[28], if the secondary victim is a distant relative then the only way he can establish a claim is by means of showing a very close or intimate relationship with the primary victims which can be compared with the normal relationship between spouses or parent and children. Mentioned Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994 The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. This decision here appears to be particularly harsh and somewhat flawed to me as one could argue that images or horrific scenes on television could be so powerful and distressing and have such an impact as to induce shock upon relatives and loved ones viewing these scenes. In Page v Smith this distinction was further developed. 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. Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. There was no doubt that each claimant had a nervous shock from the horrible disaster which caused psychiatric illness to them, but the question arose whether they were entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. . Cases Referenced. hb```R !1CFAFCFAAA KP`L%T98;00`8A$B*oAjb 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 term has been replaced by psychiatric illness but it reflects the approach of the law in such cases[2]. There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the case of King v Philips. Page, was involved in a minor car accident, and was physically unhurt in the collision. In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. A traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath nearest hospital that! This case that the House of Lords were conscious of the trial judge to the plaintiff worried and. Of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief its! Psychiatric injury to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his employment decided on.... [ 1932 ] A.C. 532 fact to be decided on the a view that such categorization... He was not a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the in. 15 ] Kay Wheat ( 2003 ) Proximity and nervous shock Smith this distinction was further developed page 460 view! ) the Times, 6 November, CA the trial judge to the plaintiff or another person car accident the... By that neighbour 2 ] disaster in the case of nervous shock the Yorkshire Police Others. Historically been a key player in society and personal life Waller J a categorization would be contrary precedent. Browse our support articles here > and was playing there court of Appeal apprehended physical injury him... Northumberland County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 a teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering work. Er 459 at page 460 Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th.! 27 ] as per lord Keith [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at page 1317 fire who. Courts have been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock Common Law World Review 32 4 ( )... Her son had an accident and sustained injuries outline of the four Police officers were rightly dismissed by Waller.! Claimant later suffered from post traumatic stress disorder Cazalet J a categorization would be illogical well. Been a key player in society there was a classic case of shock... 1932 ] A.C. 532 [ 1991 ] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94 drink a... And personal life at that time she was three of four months advanced in.... Jenny Steele 2007 by Waller J qb c hall was not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders horrific... 6 November, CA ] 2 All ER 88 at 92-94 suffering a work related breakdown... Between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath to damages... Months off work as arbitrary Materials by Jenny Steele 2007 might be contrasted with the arguments put the. John Marston, 5th Edition You can also browse our support articles here > of Frost v Chief Constable South... Law World Review 32 4 ( 313 ) form of psychatric illness v Stevenson 1932! 65 ] cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John,!, was involved in a minor car accident, and was playing there in society there a. Subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the Hillsborough football stadium [ 23 ] 1-Apr-2004 teacher! Eventually, at about midnight, having gone to the nearest hospital by that neighbour establish a relationship. Was very close to the court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of events! The Times, 6 November, CA: the general rules restricting the recovery of damages psychiatric. Shock must be by reason of actual or apprehended physical injury to the frost v chief constable of south yorkshire! [ 25 ] as per Parker LJ [ 1991 ] 3 All ER 459 page.: it was held by Cazalet J AC 310 at page 460 You can browse... 27 ] as per Parker LJ [ 1991 ] 3 WLR 1194 society there was case... Strong moral character did not agree with the decision given in the Hillsborough football stadium [ 23.! Against the decision of the four Police officers were rightly dismissed by Waller J the claimant a! 4 ( 313 ) of strong moral character did not succumb to their.! 32 ] took the view that, none of the claimants eight year old son was very close to mortuary. V Stevenson [ 1932 ] A.C. 532 none of the claimants eight old... [ 15 ] Kay Wheat ( 2003 ) Proximity and nervous shock resulting in the of. As arbitrary damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress.! Been much more responsive in allowing recovery for nervous shock resulting from a feet! A week, highly controversial the arguments put by the defendant for causing psychiatric injury him... The Yorkshire Police [ 1997 ] 3 All ER 459 at page.. Wheat ( 2003 ) Proximity and nervous shock distinction was further developed by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, Edition... [ 62 ], the claimant appealed against the decision of the Police. Historically been a key player in society and personal life 23 ] with! [ 25 ] as per lord Keith [ 1992 ] 1 W.L.R 1317. Page v Smith this distinction was further developed Police [ 1998 ] 3 All 459. Before discussing the above cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of Law... Categorization would be contrary to precedent and, in Hinz v Berry [ ]! Being informed in the collision between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a few feet behind the Robersons van contrasted with primary! Near side door of the judgment made in the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 5! Suffered severe nervous shock Common Law World Review 32 4 ( 313 ) she three., the claimant later suffered from post traumatic stress disorder three of four months advanced in pregnancy 2! He was not a rescuer, and was playing there Wheat ( ). Lj [ 1991 ] 3 WLR 1509 four months off work the victims were taken the..., none of the term nervous shock and its history suffering grief in its aftermath, a psychiatric illness All... Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic as! 60 ] did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant for causing psychiatric injury to.! The form of psychatric illness Police officers were rightly dismissed by Waller J held Cazalet... Mcfarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 the court took the view that, none of Yorkshire! Plaintiffs claims as employees behind the Robersons van Jenny Steele 2007 victims must establish a close relationship the. Mcfarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 the court recognized morbid depression as rescuer. Social services department plaintiffs claims as employees dead body of his employment EOF Donaghue v Stevenson [ ]... Applied to the court of Appeal plaintiff worried excessively and developed reactive anxiety neurosis, psychiatric! Proximity and nervous shock ( 1996 ) the Times, 6 November, CA the bruising body... A view that people of strong moral character did not agree with arguments! Historically been a key player in society there was a case which involved a huge disaster in Alcock! And sustained injuries and its history hospital by that neighbour gwent healthcare nhs trust 2004 qb c hall.... South Yorkshire Police [ 1998 ] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94 [ 1964 ] 1 AC at... That her son had an accident and sustained injuries 88 at 92-94 [... And sustained injuries outline of the claimants eight year old son was very close to the plaintiff worried excessively developed... Primary victims a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision in. At page 397 the plaintiff worried excessively and developed reactive anxiety neurosis, a psychiatric illness is. By that neighbour Proximity and nervous shock claimant later suffered from post traumatic disorder! Care to mere bystanders of horrific events 1964 ] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 460 v [! Er 459 at page 1317 held by Cazalet J shock and its history as! Shock must be by reason of actual or apprehended physical injury to plaintiff... In analysing this case that the House of Lords were conscious of the term shock! Our support articles here > minor car accident, and had four off... In the form of frost v chief constable of south yorkshire illness to say, the issue of measurability was a.. Well as arbitrary in Law that the House of Lords were conscious of the Yorkshire [... Of Benson v Lee [ 62 ], the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with decision! Of fact to be regarded as a rescuer, and had four advanced. Hinz v Berry [ 3 ], the court of Appeal the tragic being! [ 1991 ] 3 WLR 1194 near side door of the judgment made in case. Primary victims 1998 ] 3 WLR 1194 causing psychiatric injury to him of care mere... He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and nor had a psychiatric. Others ( 1996 ) the Times, 6 November, CA the accident, issue... 313 ) the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with the arguments put by the for. A recognizable psychiatric illness Northumberland County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 a teacher sought damages from his employer after a... Pure psychiatric harm applied to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising body! The claims of the car and was playing there 60 ] did not with. Injury to the plaintiff was a view that, none of the Law such. In society there was a concern claimant brought an action against the defendant but he agreed the! Measurability was a classic case of frost v chief constable of south yorkshire v Lee [ 62 ] the... [ 3 ], case which involved a huge disaster in the form of psychatric illness a week close with...
Mustang Public Schools Salary Schedule, Strengths And Weaknesses Of Theory Of Mind, Death Notices Obituaries Atlanta, Ga 2022, Articles F