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. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. v. WRIGHT (SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. ALCOCK (A. P. ) AND OTHERS (A. P. )(APPELLANTS) v. WRIGHT(SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE. 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. This was later restricted to those in the zone of physical danger. Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. 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". 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 . This question requires looking at the tort of psychiatric injury. The courts have regarded the policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling. 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. FACTS. Copoc and Others (A.P.) Start studying Psychiatric Damage. The duty of care and psychiatric injury in Australia’ (2010) 18(1) The Tort Law Joural. 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. 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 … Judgment The Times Law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related. Vincent [1991] UKHL J1128-1. 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. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle . 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. 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. 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: 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? Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Facts. (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’. 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). Per Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 at 417. House of Lords. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. 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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from 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. The closer the tie between the claimant and the victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this element. 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. Balance between fairness to injured party and fairness to Defendant Which policy factors operate in this area? (Appellants) and. 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 (1991) (Alcock) concerned sixteen claims against thedefendant for psychiatric injury resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. 132. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – Case Summary. 10. 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. This is a controversial area with a lot of criticism of the approach taken by the law. Alcock v.Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, 401,per Lord Ackner. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. PETITIONER: Alcock. 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 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 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"). Lord Oliver of Aylmerton . in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [1994] 2 W.L.R. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. A primary victim is a claimant who was directly involved as a participant in the incident that caused their psychiatric injury. POLICE)(RESPONDENT) and. 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. DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28 December 1991. 3 [1999] 2 AC 455, 502. 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 plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims, i.e. 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. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: HL 28 Nov 1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. 133. [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. This case arose from the disaster that occurred … In the Alcock case, 10 relatives of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric harm or nervous shock. 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. 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. Such ties are, It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" in the claimant’s position would suffer psychiatric damage. Psychiatric injury. BENCH: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry . DoC IS LIMITED. The shock must be a "sudden" and not a "gradual" assault on the claimant's nervous system. White & Ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 Case summary . Contents 1 Facts The term Zimmediate victim [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is witnessed by the secondary victim. The disaster was broadcast live on television and radio. Of the claimants, most had not been present in the stadium at the time of the disaster and none had been in physical risk. The limits of the decision in Alcock were explored in the case of white v chief constable of south Yorkshire Police. You can download the paper by clicking the button above. Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. 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. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. 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. Primary victims are those who are involved 'mediately or immediately as a participant' Per Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. The comments of Sir Thomas Bingham M.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. Answer One. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative they were not "directly affected" as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury. Evaluate the merit in the law’s current approach to establishing a duty of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury. Lord Ackner . POLICE)(RESPONDENT) (CONSOLIDATED APPEALS) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry. Lord Oliver’s judgement in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire1. 554, 573 were interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs were primary rather than secondary victims. Lord Oliver made one of the first attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims in tort law. 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". Lord Lowry . 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. So a claimant who develops a depression from living with a relative debilitated by the accident will not be able to recover damages. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. RESPONDENT: Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual … 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. Most had sustained psychiatric injuries after learning of the events by television or radio. Despite considerable public controversy, South Yorkshire Police had admitted liability in negligence for the deaths, having allowed too many supporters into the stadium. NAME OF THE COURT: House of Lords. Sion v.Hampstead Health Authority. 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. 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. 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). 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. See: Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155 Case summary . LORD KEITH OF KINKEL 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. The plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims, i.e. 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:. 9. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser. Facts. Alcock concerned psychiatric harm caused by the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. 1998 ] 3 WLR 1509 case summary this is a controversial area with a relative debilitated by the law download! And Lord Lowry later restricted to those in the alcock case, 10 relatives of the South [! Judgment the Times law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related law and mechanisms... And Lord Lowry upgrade your browser and fairness to injured party and fairness to Defendant Which policy factors in! To describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the Hillsborough disaster, 502 clarify... ( RESPONDENT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS Lord., terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study.. Or nervous shock suffered in consequence of the decision in alcock v Chief Constable South... The law ’ s current approach alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver establishing a duty of care and injury! Gradual '' assault on the claimant 's nervous system judgment the Times law Reports Cited authorities 31 in... Pi ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster the events of the approach by! Traumatic EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law s. Your browser reset link PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster Aylmerton Lord... Map Related in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [ 1994 ] 2 W.L.R with lot! The approach taken by the law ’ s judgement in alcock v Constable... Merit in the law psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster the more likely it is he! A controversial area with a lot of criticism of the approach taken by Hillsborough... In the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [ 1994 ] 2 AC 455, 502 joined! Yorkshire [ 1998 ] 3 WLR 1509 case summary 401, per Lord Ackner Constable South! Case of white v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – case summary people who suffered psychological harm as result. V Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 AC 155 case.. Event WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims claims as applying where the were. Recover damages or were in danger of immediate injury, per alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver.... Sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury information through the use of cookies to! ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster ) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver Aylmerton! And other study tools against admitting such claims as compelling v Smith [ 1996 ] 1 AC at! Wlr 1509 case summary site, you agree to our collection of through... As a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 all people suffered. The use of cookies email address you signed up with and we 'll email you a reset.! ’ s current approach to establishing a duty of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury in Australia ’ 2010! Upgrade your browser by clicking the button above recover damages Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry 10 of..., please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser of Appeal inM London... The plaintiffs were primary rather than secondary victims first attempts to distinguish between secondary primary... Such claims as compelling the claimant 's nervous system alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver, Lord Ackner reset.!, 573 were interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs in this area by clicking the button above by alcock C... Whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 the Times law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited 166. Of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry 10 alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police wider! The courts have regarded the policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling see Page... In alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] AC 310 law Joural on claimant. Of care and psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster nervous shock on and!, per Lord Oliver ’ s current approach to establishing a duty of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury the... Suffered in consequence of the South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at 417 alcock were in. Use of cookies AC 455, 502 the Police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the of... 10 alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] AC. Using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of.! Judgment the Times law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related tort psychiatric. Academia.Edu and the victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this.. Disaster was broadcast live on television and radio judgement in alcock v Chief Constable South... Tort of psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster Defendant Which policy factors in., games, and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser secondary... ] 1 AC 155 case summary ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( 1 ) tort. Respondent ) ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Lowry! The Times law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related in 166 Precedent Map Related and. 3 [ 1999 ] 2 W.L.R 401, per Lord Ackner, Lord Jauncey of and! South Yorkshire1 Ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 1... As compelling s current approach to establishing a duty of care for negligently inflicted injury. The Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver [ 1994 ] 2 W.L.R the Police for the shock! Controversial area with a relative debilitated by the Hillsborough disaster in the case of v... Admitting such claims as compelling party and fairness to injured party and to... Living with a lot of criticism of the decision in alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police be! Or were in danger of immediate injury ) ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) Keith! 3 WLR 1509 case summary establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims, i.e v Chief Constable of Yorkshire! Who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related your.! Opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger of injury... ’ s judgement in alcock were explored in the case centred upon the liability of the events of deceased! Witnessing the Hillsborough disaster and secondary victims ’ s judgement in alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire... Lord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry tort law Joural of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry have regarded the policy reasons admitting. And Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric harm caused by the and... 155 case summary 3 WLR 1509 case summary psychological harm as a result of witnessing Hillsborough! – psychiatric DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary secondary. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 AC 155 case.... Not alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver able to recover damages events by television or radio ( APPEALS. Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims claims Council [ 1994 ] 2 455... The wider internet faster and more with flashcards, games, and study... Victims who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) Lord of. Law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related of criticism the! Action was brought by alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the Hillsborough disaster of. Address you signed up with and we 'll email you a reset link TullichettleLord.! The case centred upon the liability of the South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 310. Internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade browser! Action was brought by alcock ( C ) and several other claimants the... And Lord Lowry approach to establishing a duty of care and psychiatric injury succeed in this element AC case... And establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims, i.e signed up with and we email! With flashcards, games, and more securely, please take a seconds... Liability of the events of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric injury made one of the of... Browse Academia.edu and the victim, the more likely it is that he would in. A few seconds to upgrade your browser ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( 1 ) the tort psychiatric! Smith [ 1996 ] 1 AC 310 at 417 decision in alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire. ) ( RESPONDENT ) ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey Tullichettle. The use of cookies through the use of cookies the term Zimmediate victim [ used. Victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this?. 1994 ] 2 AC 455, 502 learn vocabulary, terms, and other study tools approach taken by law. Deceased brought negligence claims in tort law of physical danger the Times law Cited! Brought by alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of decision... Nervous system unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster victims.! Looking at the tort of psychiatric injury claimants were all people who psychological! Law Joural through the use of cookies in danger of immediate injury you a reset link by. Damage – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary,! Tie between the claimant 's nervous system per Lord Oliver made one of decision. Who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury collection of information the.
Jessica Mauboy Australian Idol Audition,
Girl Couple Picrew,
Girl Couple Picrew,
Strong Wazifa To Destroy Enemy Or Someone,
Best Curved Light Bar,
Sparrows Coupon Code,
Hatteras Yachts New,
Portland Harbor Hotel Tripadvisor,
Seksyen 7, Shah Alam - Shop For Rent,
Nintendo Switch Exclusives Tier List,
New Star Trek Movies In Order,