The House of Lords, in finding for D, held that, in cases of purely psychiatric damage caused by negligence, a distinction must be drawn between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ victims. However, once it is shown that some psychiatric damage was foreseeable, it does not matter that the claimant was particularly susceptible to psychiatric illness - the defendant must "take his victim as he finds him" and pay for all the consequences of nervous shock (see, This page was last edited on 1 May 2020, at 15:00. Of the claimants, most had not been present in the stadium at the time of the disaster and none had been in physical risk. C and the other claimants all had relatives who were caught up in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster, in which 95 fans of Liverpool FC died in a crush due, it was later established, to the negligence of the police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. It was argued for the plaintiffs in the present case that reasonable foreseeability of the risk of injury to them in the particular form of psychiatric illness was all that was required to bring home liability to the defendant. Such persons must establish: Neither C nor the other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed. [2] Although reform has been widely advocated and a legislative proposal to mitigate some of the effects of Alcock was drafted by the Parliamentary Law Commission in 1998, the decision in Alcock represents the state of the law in the area of liability for psychiatric harm as it currently stands. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. The overcrowding was due to police negligence. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. Case Summary South Yorkshire Police had been responsible for crowd control at the football match and had been negligent in directing an excessively large number of … The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Facts. Facts. We also have a number of samples, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. 19th Jun 2019 *You can also browse our support articles here >, A close tie of love and affection to a primary victim, Appreciation of the event with their own unaided senses, Proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath. For a duty to be owed to protect a secondary victim from psychiatric harm, the following criteria must be met: Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that a close tie of love and affection is presumed between spouses and fiancées, and for parents towards their children. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. The plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims, i.e. If the nervous shock is caused by witnessing the death or injury of another person the claimant must show a "sufficiently proximate" relationship to that person, usually described as a "close tie of love and affection". Primary victims are: Any other person is a secondary victim. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Ackner explained that an event would not be witnessed with ‘unaided senses’ if it was seen on television or communicated by a third-party. Reference this The claimants sued the defendant (the employer of the police officers attending the event) in negligence. So a claimant who develops a depression from living with a relative debilitated by the accident will not be able to recover damages. The closer the tie between the claimant and the victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this element. In the Alcock case, 10 relatives of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric harm or nervous shock. This occurred at the Hillsborough Football Stadium, Sheffield during the FA Cup Semi-Final in which 96 spectators were killed and 450 injured in a human crush. The shock must be a "sudden" and not a "gradual" assault on the claimant's nervous system. Those within the zone of danger created by the negligence; Those who are not within the zone of danger created by the negligence but who reasonably believe themselves to be; Those who reasonably believe they have caused the death or serious injury of another. Such ties are, It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" in the claimant’s position would suffer psychiatric damage. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. He speculated where what was seen on television was equivalent to seeing it in person, the ‘unaided senses’ requirement could be dispensed with. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Lord Ackner distinguished ‘sudden shock’ cases from those in which psychiatric illness is inflicted by the gradual stress of grief or having to look after an injured person. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, consisting of Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, and Lord Lowry has established a number of "control mechanisms" or conditions that had to be fulfilled in order for a duty of care to be found in such cases. For example, they did not consider a man who witnessed the disfigured body of his brother-in-law in the morgue eight hours after the disaster to have witnessed the immediate aftermath. they were not "directly affected" as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury. Lord Keith of Kinkel commented that psychiatric harm to an unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event was particularly horrific. Looking for a flexible role? Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – Case Summary. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310 House of Lords. Some witnessed the events on television. The psychiatric harm must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event. He gave the example of a live broadcast filming close-up to an event where the accident unexpectedly occurs. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. 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). The law distinguishes between primary and secondary victims of psychiatric harm. The House of Lords held in favour of the defendant. Company Registration No: 4964706. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help you with your studies. Some of the claimants witnessed events from other parts of the stadium. The decision has been criticised as being excessively harsh on the claimants, as well as not fully corresponding with medical knowledge regarding psychiatric illness brought about by nervous shock. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. The claimant must share a close tie of love and affection with someone injured or killed in the event; The claimant must have close geographical and temporal proximity with the event or its immediate aftermath; The claimant must have witnessed something horrifying with unaided senses; The claimant must have suffered harm by way of a ‘sudden shock’ as a result. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Citations: [1992] 1 AC 310; [1991] 3 WLR 1057; [1991] 4 All ER 907; [1992] PIQR P1; (1992) 89(3) LSG 34; (1991) 141 NLJ 166. Others did not witness the event, but suffered harm when they were told their relatives had been injured or saw their bodies in the morgue or hospital. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. This case arose from the disaster that occurred at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield in the FA cup semi-final match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in 1989. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. He defined shock as ‘the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind.’. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. The House of Lords were called upon to determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor. Each claim failed for different reasons, such as: there was no evidence of a close tie of affection; the claimants had not witnessed the events with unaided senses; and the claimants had not viewed the immediate aftermath because too much time had passed before they saw the victim’s bodies. The impact of this on the area of law once described as a '"patchwork quilt of distinctions which are quite difficult to justify"[1] is significant because the decision made by the Law Lords was heavily influenced by the greater social concern of allowing a flood of claims with which the judicial system would not be able to cope (the "floodgates argument"). The disaster was broadcast live on television and radio. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Despite considerable public controversy, South Yorkshire Police had admitted liability in negligence for the deaths, having allowed too many supporters into the stadium. A secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria. White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcock_v_Chief_Constable_of_South_Yorkshire_Police&oldid=954268837, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, Negligence, nervous shock, primary and secondary victims, The claimant who is a "secondary victim" must perceive a "shocking event" with his own unaided senses, as an eye-witness to the event, or hearing the event in person, or viewing its "immediate aftermath". Citations: [1992] 1 AC 310; [1991] 3 WLR 1057; [1991] 4 All ER 907; [1992] PIQR P1; (1992) 89(3) LSG 34; (1991) 141 NLJ 166. Most had sustained psychiatric injuries after learning of the events by television or radio. Lord Ackner thought that not all cases where the accident is viewed remotely would be excluded. For all other relationships, it must be proven. VAT Registration No: 842417633. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. The House of Lords also indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘immediate aftermath’ of the event is very short. 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). Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. Some of the Lords made obiter statements indicating that the Alcock criteria could be departed from in some cases: These dicta has not been followed in any other case, however.