frost v chief constable of south yorkshire

The claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the course of his employment. . 12 0 obj [1981] 1 All ER 809. In this instance, mental illness was accompanied by a physical trauma i.e. 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. Abstract. In the case of bystanders, it is not generally foreseeable by the defendants that such a person would suffer from psychiatric injury. 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]. View examples of our professional work here. The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. 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. So, in this situation- Singleton LJ. 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. 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. [29] As per Lord Oliver [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 417. [23] Davie M (1992) Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Illness: The Hillsborough Case in the House of Lords 43 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 237. 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. [65] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. 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. Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . Afterwards she went down to the corridor and came across one of her children crying who had fer face cut and discoloured with mud and soil. It appears in analysing this case that the House of Lords were conscious of the judgment made in the Alcock case. Pages 14 Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. had introduced the Special Rule . Music background [70] As per Griffith LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 829. He further considered that, such a proximity relationship or close tie of love and affection might exist between the family members or friends. This principle was later applied in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! II. In the present case, despite of being present at the stadium during the football match the claimants whose action had been rejected by the House of Lords are as follows[25]: Brian Harrison was one of the appellants. Mental Health of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors. He was a road worker instructed to attend by the defendant immediately after a terrible accident. /Length 13 0 R The above judgment in White v The Chief Constable allowed the defendants' appeal against the 1997 Court of Appeal decision in Frost & Ors. 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. Hopes had been pinned on the decision of the House of Lords in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, but by and large Frost is a disap- pointment. The courts both in England and Ireland have endeavoured to limit the scope of liability for psychiatric illness, by establishing a set of criteria that a claimant/s must fulfil in order to be entitled to compensation. . Although, there was a rebuttable presumption that, in some cases, the close tie of love may exist between the engaged couples which might be even stronger than that of the married couples. Similarly there are some other cases where the claimants were not actually present at the scene of the accident but the court still held the defendant liable for negligently inflicting psychaitric injury to the claimants. When faced with these two decisions, one can't help but recall the comment of Lord Steyn in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 2 AC 455 (at 511), who considered that "the search for principle was called off in Alcock". He was not a rescuer, and nor had . The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries. His widow claimed in nervous shock, saying that it had eventually led to his own death. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. 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. N>7>@s!z9@-w9Hy^O1? M:fXxKGkYqLfX A Ai>|N_*HbOsu.7B ovRl-#GQcLXH`{70l191X?@j`P02:vKX @9E. The claimant brought an action against the defendant for causing psychiatric injury to him. 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 the White case this principle was not upheld, a possible reason, one could argue, might be to prevent an increase of claims in this category. He was seriously injured. Appeal from - White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998. 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. Close ties of love and affection was assumed in relation to parent- child and spouse relationships. However, in this case, their Lordship took the similar opinion that, the issue of proximity of relationship should be decided on a case by case basis. White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police was a 1998 case in English tort law in which police officers who were present in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. 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. Due to the accident, the claimants husband suffered from bruising and the other children suffered from severe physical injuries and shock. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. X CsGPL)8eDD(!#V+x 6g9%RlTJ%R "XL9$Q)pTFb%irDs!(;wx*9y_yr:!,y|(*ch1Y.qT%f#R4xSn"4;I.lMO.d==Z:B|dU6t()M.|^~,fmO'8\W?O@OVC\%rESn,IPx$|`S|}KBn|oX]vhaa\]ncWi=tMGcvg7v~M&ClWAb]n~_uuzAU60\T!lnV_ '0HPT l#H:+pQ )cmlu-'46:ut(:&:h 1=i?|\A dY;dzCP(@QD}XMSV/bVS:|x(v@7|, ,mFFL [g59gNqTeB@)V&l33%f@)6a87<>Vb3{,>gkWBPz|}y.H%g -m(-1HN]>0Ns6t Z~\ L6M [7] Nervous Shock-when is it compensable? In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. l'LCocI2Vp.0c This was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned. Recovery, on the other hand, for a secondary victim is differentiated and is much more restricted. Case summaries. The claimant further argued that the defendant by causing an accident to the boy negligently had been in breach of his duty and was liable to for all the direct consequences of the breach, no matter if the damage to the claimant was reasonably forseeable or not. Although, Rough was driving another van but he came across the accident. Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann, Lord Browne-Wilkinson Gazette 13-Jan-1999, [1999] 1 All ER 1, [1999] 2 AC 455, [1998] UKHL 45, [1999] ICR 216, [1998] 3 WLR 1509, [1999] IRLR 110, (1999) 45 BMLR 1 House of Lords, Bailii England and Wales Citing: Appeal from Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others CA 31-Oct-1996 The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. 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. 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. 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]. At the time of the accident, the claimant was at home that was two miles away from the place of the accident. The term is used to describe psychiatric injury or illness which is caused by the defendant. [1999] 2 AC 455. 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. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. The appointment of the former Deputy Chief Constable Lauren Poultney was approved at a . However, the trial judge, Boreham J[68], took the view that- although the claimant was a person of reasonable fortitude and the mental condition that she had suffered due to shock was different from mere grief and sorrow, but it was held that the defendant was not liable for causing psychiatric injury to her because it was not reasonably foreseeable. Then she went to see another child and found him unconscious. 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. [51] As per Singleton LJ. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) found in favour of all but one of the officers. The court considered her to be outside the area of potential danger. Finally, after a careful consideration of all the issues, it was held by Cazalet J. Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [1995 . Another appellant, namely Robert Alcock, was present on the ground during the football match and witnessed the whole disaster from the west stand of the stadium. The requirement of immediate aftermath principle was firmly established in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[67]. The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. The accident took place when the victims car collided with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry. Having heard the boys scream the claimant rushed there and saw the accident which caused psychiatric injury to him. While Robertson was driving the van, Smith was sitting on top of the metal sheet. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. Also the plaintiff had to establish that the nervous shock caused by the accident, resulted from her fear for her own safety. It is of paramount importance that the law enforcement CA"$a& ,@jj DCn*Bt!\&;i~(JkGAI40-,,l_66PK$UHCT)FnpdC\uJ*C.W@tjJ9mG9#=8 }+,CPkkHYUTVJ_6YGw.=t]C8yjb[(B~*bhO]ijp+2C+asL!!\Bx*V'G/8W-d8y~M=_T\$eZA During this period in society there was a view that people of strong moral character did not succumb to their emotions. Primary victims are victims who are imperilled or reasonably believe themselves to be imperilled by the defendants negligence.Lord Steyn said: the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify. Is there any liability for self inflicted physical injury which caused the claimants psychiatric illness? It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . 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. D h.d.CFPxe @0RI4 #Pm'Qc^FF" -P!P)Hljc6f.X{81,qxn;G#1t._!c 6jlw(9OAEiQ*Jr.JEW; v}qsF{-HE qx#>#erJ5$afH" :s8C1@( di4)bH'=8 pKzx2DjkZhh"lc+*`>p@>*& "$x 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. Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . [69] As per Stephenson LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 823. The defendant relied on the decision of the case in Bourhill v Young[48] with a view to support his arguement and stated that the psychiatric injury to the mother was not reasonably foreseeable as she was not within the range of reasonable anticipation. . The Greatorex v Greatorex and another[37]is another case in which the question arose whether a defendant owes any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing him a psychiatric injury by self inflicted injuries. The 2003 decision of Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point. The facts of this case are as follows, the plaintiff, Mr. . %%EOF The question was whether, having regard to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to . 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. 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. 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. The courts in a number of cases have attempted to define the psychiatric illness. was reluctant to interfere with the findings of the court and agreed with the decision given by McNair J. However, as far as their claim for psychiatric illness was concerned, the court was neither convinced with the surrounding facts and circumstances that there was sufficient close tie of love and affection with the claimants and the primary victim nor was convinced that the psychiatric illness that they had sustained was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant in accordance with the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness established in the leading case of Alcock. .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. He took the view that, there was no negligence on the part of Keith Keel but the defedant was negligent and committed a breach of his duty of care. . But, when a bystander of a horrible event suffers from psychiatric injury, it becomes very difficult for him or her to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury, since such a person is not closely connected to the injured person. The caimant was summoned by the hospital authority in order to see her injured family members. [1992] 1 AC 310 Lord . 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]. 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. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. After ariving to the garage, the claimant was asked by the defendant to repay the garage bills before he get his car released from that garage. Although he did not suffer physical injury, the crash he claimed resulted in chronic fatigue syndrome. 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. 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. 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. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Disclaimer: This dissertation has been written by a student and is not an example of our professional work, which you can see examples of here. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. . It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . 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. [1952] 2 All ER 459 at page 460. .Cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. We've received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io. Courts must therefore act in company and not alone. .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. That was a very strong windy day when the tragic accident took place. By Christopher Gardner, QC, Lamb Chambers. 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. The courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants in the Alcock case had the officers been successful in this case . The boy sustained a very minor injury and the damage to his tricycle was nothing serious. 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. Looking for a flexible role? 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. Both these two cases which involved the plaintiff being exposed to asbestos highlight the strictness of the Irish law in respect to such claims. The most commonly medically recognised illness of this type is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). 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]. 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 . At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. Page, was involved in a minor car accident, and was physically unhurt in the collision. 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 court considered chronic fatigue syndrome to be a recognizable psychiatric injury[9]. The defendants car was standing inside the garage and he started backing the car out of the garage. 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. 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. 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 .

Bud Dupree House, Shawn Paul Novak Today 2020, Skate America 2022 Location, Yoskovich Funeral Home Obituaries, Articles F