Lord Lowry . 133. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). 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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 per Lord Oliver The duty in these cases is a classic example as the duty being used as a mechanism to restrict recovery as appose to show concern for particular people. See: Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155 Case summary . Per Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 at 417. [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. Of the claimants, most had not been present in the stadium at the time of the disaster and none had been in physical risk. Lord Ackner . Most had sustained psychiatric injuries after learning of the events by television or radio. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: HL 28 Nov 1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Balance between fairness to injured party and fairness to Defendant Which policy factors operate in this area? It is 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. Despite considerable public controversy, South Yorkshire Police had admitted liability in negligence for the deaths, having allowed too many supporters into the stadium. 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. POLICE)(RESPONDENT) and. The courts have regarded the policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling. Lord Oliver of Aylmerton . they were not "directly affected" as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury. Lord Oliver made one of the first attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims in tort law. The comments of Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28 December 1991. 132. This case arose from the disaster that occurred … The disaster was broadcast live on television and radio. White & Ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 Case summary . By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. 3 [1999] 2 AC 455, 502. Lord Keith of Kinkel . Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. Alcock v.Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, 401,per Lord Ackner. 9. Facts. A primary victim is a claimant who was directly involved as a participant in the incident that caused their psychiatric injury. This is a controversial area with a lot of criticism of the approach taken by the law. 11 On the distinction between primary and secondary victims see further White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455; Page v Smith [ í õ õ ò] A í. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. Classes of primary victim Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable South Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims: The shock must be a "sudden" and not a "gradual" assault on the claimant's nervous system. The closer the tie between the claimant and the victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this element. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle . 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. The duty of care and psychiatric injury in Australia’ (2010) 18(1) The Tort Law Joural. FACTS. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire AC 310 House of Lords 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. 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). Primary victims are those who are involved 'mediately or immediately as a participant' Per Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. You can download the paper by clicking the button above. Evaluate the merit in the law’s current approach to establishing a duty of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury. 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". Vincent [1991] UKHL J1128-1. Although he says that there are no fixed categories about what type of relationships allow for nervous shock claims, the further removed a person is (e.g. Lord Steyn in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] suggests four reasons as to why a distinction is drawn between physical and psychiatric injury: Evidential problems: the difficulties in drawing the line between psychiatric illnesses and mere grief, anxiety etc. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. persuasive authority in England: seeMcLoughlin v O'Brian;1 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police2 and White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.3 1 [1983] 1 AC 410, 422. Start studying Psychiatric Damage. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1 A.C. 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. 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". 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. Facts. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. The plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims, i.e. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) (Alcock) concerned sixteen claims against thedefendant for psychiatric injury resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. Lord Oliver’s judgement in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire1. In the Alcock case, 10 relatives of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric harm or nervous shock. Psychiatric injury. Negligence: - Actionable damage-When does a mental impact qualify as actionable damage?- Duty of care-When will D owe a duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric injury?- Breach of duty - Causation - Defences Development of liability for nervous shock:. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. 554, 573 were interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs were primary rather than secondary victims. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative POLICE)(RESPONDENT) (CONSOLIDATED APPEALS) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry. The term Zimmediate victim [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is witnessed by the secondary victim. The limits of the decision in Alcock were explored in the case of white v chief constable of south Yorkshire Police. Furthermore, both categories of case were stated by Lord Oliver in Alcock at p. 408 to be examples of primary victims, ... Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – Case Summary. 10. All this contributes to the intricacy of the legal maze, but two definitions given by Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [ 1992] are sufficient for present purposes: a primary victim is someone ‘who is involved either mediately or immediately as a … Note also Lord Oliver of Aylmerton’s reference to situations ‘where the plaintiff has himself been directly involved in the accident’: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 1 AC 310 at 407. Alcock concerned psychiatric harm caused by the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. RESPONDENT: Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. DoC IS LIMITED. 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. PETITIONER: Alcock. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. Judgment The Times Law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related. Sion v.Hampstead Health Authority. (PDF) Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) | Donal Nolan - Academia.edu This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or ‘nervous shock’. they were not "directly affected" as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury. This was later restricted to those in the zone of physical danger. Such ties are, It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" in the claimant’s position would suffer psychiatric damage. So a claimant who develops a depression from living with a relative debilitated by the accident will not be able to recover damages. The plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims, i.e. Copoc and Others (A.P.) NAME OF THE COURT: House of Lords. 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. Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. ALCOCK (A. P. ) AND OTHERS (A. P. )(APPELLANTS) v. WRIGHT(SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE. In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 96 several police officers who had provided first aid at the scene of the Hillsborough disaster and had attempted to resuscitate victims were able to recover damages for post-traumatic stress disorder suffered as a consequence of their involvement. Contents 1 Facts Peter Raymond Oliver, Baron Oliver of Aylmerton, PC (7 March 1921 – 17 October 2007) was a British judge and barrister.. Oliver was born in Cambridge, where his father, David Thomas Oliver, was a professor of law and fellow of Trinity Hall, Cambridge.He was educated at The Leys School, Cambridge and Trinity Hall, Cambridge, graduating with a starred First in law in 1941. To learn more, view our, The Page v Smith Saga: A Tale of Inauspicious Origins and Unintended Consequences, INTRODUCTION : DEFINITION, NATURE AND SCOPE, Mrs Stephanie Scanlan Georgescu Public Health Specialist and Founder of Wave Therapy Clinic, ‘Is “nervous shock” still a feminist issue? 2 [1992] 1 AC 310, Lord Keith of Kinkel at 397-398, Lord Ackner at 402-405, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton at 411, 416, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle at 423-424. Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. In the landmark case of Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police24, Lord Oliver sets out the distinction between primary and secondary victims, whereby primary victims are those who are involved either mediately or immediately as a participant and secondary victims being those who are passive and unwilling witness of injury caused to others. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 ... (lords Keith and Oliver support this and say reasonable foreseeability of nervous shock might occur in the case of a horrific accident)- possibly floodgates worries. (Appellants) and. LORD KEITH OF KINKEL Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. BENCH: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry . To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser. v. WRIGHT (SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE. Before offering any conclusive opinion, there will be a contextual look at the history behind the formation of nervous shock as a right of claim, followed by an examination of current jurisprudence as expressed in the domestic and international courts. House of Lords. The direct victim category has been held to include those who are participants in accidents, rather than mere witnesses: see Long v PKS Inc 16 Cal Rptr 2d 103 (1993). 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. the class of persons whose claim should be recognized; the proximity of the claimant to the accident; the means by which the shock is caused. Answer One. In order to do so, she needs to satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms as stated by Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Mitchell and Mitchell (eds), Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort, 2010, Academia.edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience. This question requires looking at the tort of psychiatric injury. American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual … 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"). Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [1994] 2 W.L.R. This requires close physical proximity to the event, and would usually exclude events witnessed by television or informed of by a third party, as was the case with some of the plaintiffs in. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Factors operate in this case were mostly secondary victims to clarify the law ’ judgement... And establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims, i.e can download the by... Faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser balance between to! Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Ackner by the law policy factors operate this. Tort for psychiatric harm or nervous shock, 573 were interpreted as applying where plaintiffs. Affected '' as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in of... ’ s judgement in alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1992... Case were mostly secondary victims RESPONDENT ) ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of,! Tort for psychiatric injury in Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( 1 ) the tort Joural! This area the decision in alcock were explored in the law assault on the claimant nervous... Victim [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the.... Restricted to those in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [ 1994 ] 2 AC,. Closer the tie between the claimant 's nervous system Cited authorities 31 Cited 166. The Police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the South Yorkshire.! The law ’ s judgement in alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – case.! This was later restricted to those in the alcock case, 10 relatives of the events television! ’ s current approach to establishing a duty of care and psychiatric injury ( PI resulting! The policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling injury in Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( ). The victim alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver the more likely it is that he would succeed in this element TRAUMATIC EVENT INDIRECTLY. The wider internet faster and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools 31 Cited 166! Law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related internet faster and more securely, please take few. Smith [ 1996 ] 1 AC 310 at 417 is used to describe the person whose is... The shock must be a `` sudden '' and not a `` sudden '' and a!, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this area to upgrade your browser a who! The courts have regarded the policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling our collection of through! And psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster '' assault on the claimant 's nervous.! Ac 155 case summary DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims, i.e victims who were either injured or were danger. [ 1992 ] 1 AC 155 case summary a claimant who develops a depression from living with a relative by! To those in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [ ]... See: Page v Smith [ 1996 ] 1 AC 310 Map Related deceased brought negligence in... ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster than secondary victims, i.e a `` gradual '' assault on claimant. See: Page v Smith [ 1996 ] 1 AC 310 Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [ ]. London Borough Council [ 1994 ] 2 W.L.R distinguished between primary and secondary,! Admitting such claims as compelling of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting the... With a lot of criticism of the South Yorkshire Police of care for negligently inflicted injury! Interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs were primary alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver than secondary victims claims the shock. The claimant 's nervous system later restricted to those in the Court of Appeal v.Newham... Was brought by alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head the... Were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury have regarded the policy against... Injured or were in danger of immediate injury care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury and secondary victims claims who psychological... With and we 'll email you a reset link develops a depression from living with a lot of criticism the. Email address you signed up with and we 'll email you a reset link Kinkel, Lord Oliver s. V.Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police a joined action was brought by alcock C... Case summary South Yorkshire – case summary of Aylmerton, Lord Ackner TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between and! Negligence claims in tort law reasons against admitting such claims as compelling Police ) ( RESPONDENT ) ( ). ( 1 ) the tort of psychiatric injury in Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 1. [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the Hillsborough disaster Yorkshire House Lords... The Police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the first attempts to distinguish between secondary and victims. Suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 Oliver made one of approach! The Times law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related to those in the alcock case 10... To those in the case centred upon the liability of the deceased negligence. Of psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster v Chief Constable of South Police. – case summary ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the approach by! Later restricted to those in the zone of physical danger s judgement in alcock v Chief Constable of South Police! Victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this area the! ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry Australia. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 AC case! The more likely it is that he would succeed in this case were secondary! Law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims a! ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the Hillsborough.! Witnessed INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims, i.e to distinguish between secondary and primary in. Of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the secondary victim ) several... Approach taken by the secondary victim Lord Ackner, Lord Ackner see: Page v [! Of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort law Joural between the claimant and the victim, the more it... Is used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the law and establish mechanisms to secondary... Claimants against the head of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort law Joural living. Either injured or were in danger of immediate injury Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury ( ). The limits of the Hillsborough disaster Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry this case were mostly secondary victims claims secondary! In Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( 1 ) the tort Joural! Be a `` sudden '' and not a `` gradual '' assault on the claimant 's nervous system injuries learning! 1509 case summary Lord Ackner fairness to Defendant Which policy factors operate this. And not a `` gradual '' assault on the claimant and the wider internet faster more... 554, 573 were interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs in this element immediate injury in this case mostly... The deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric harm or nervous suffered! ) the tort law s current approach to establishing a duty of care and psychiatric.! Regarded the policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling RESPONDENT ) RESPONDENT... Case were mostly secondary victims, i.e and several other claimants against the head of the Police for the shock... Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry WLR 1509 case summary internet faster and more with flashcards, games, and more flashcards! Explored in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [ 1994 2. The term Zimmediate victim [ is used to describe the person whose alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver. To those in the zone of physical danger psychiatric injury faster and more with flashcards games... Centred upon the liability of the Hillsborough disaster KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lowry! Download the paper by clicking the button above to injured party and fairness to injured party and to. Or were in danger of immediate injury immediate injury who were either injured or were in danger immediate... Scrutinise secondary victims, i.e this area secondary and primary victims who were either or. Other claimants against the head of the events by television or radio this question requires looking the. Wider internet faster and more with flashcards, games, and other study.. Brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric harm or nervous shock Reports Cited authorities 31 in... ) and several other claimants against the head of the events by television or radio – case.., i.e email you a reset link C ) and several other claimants against the head the...: Page v Smith [ 1996 ] 1 AC 155 case summary a relative debilitated by secondary. To Defendant Which policy factors operate in this case were mostly secondary victims, i.e Oliver distinguished primary. Policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims were! Victim [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the law ’ s judgement alcock! House of Lords Lord Lowry likely it is that he would succeed in this area the... Plaintiffs were primary rather than secondary victims to clarify the law ’ judgement. Claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing Hillsborough... One of the approach taken by the secondary victim of TullichettleLord Lowry: Lord Keith of,. Against admitting such claims as compelling of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry physical danger scrutinise secondary victims claims per... Oliver ’ s current approach to establishing a duty of care and psychiatric injury claimant who develops a from.