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. 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. The duty of care and psychiatric injury in Australia’ (2010) 18(1) The Tort Law Joural. 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? This is a controversial area with a lot of criticism of the approach taken by the law. In the Alcock case, 10 relatives of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric harm or nervous shock. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. The plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims, i.e. 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. Most had sustained psychiatric injuries after learning of the events by television or radio. 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. 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: 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. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) (Alcock) concerned sixteen claims against thedefendant for psychiatric injury resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. 9. Per Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 at 417. Judgment The Times Law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related. 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. in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [1994] 2 W.L.R. A primary victim is a claimant who was directly involved as a participant in the incident that caused their psychiatric injury. House of Lords. 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. 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. 3 [1999] 2 AC 455, 502. The disaster was broadcast live on television and radio. Copoc and Others (A.P.) DoC IS LIMITED. NAME OF THE COURT: House of Lords. Alcock concerned psychiatric harm caused by the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. Lord Lowry . 554, 573 were interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs were primary rather than secondary victims. PETITIONER: Alcock. Balance between fairness to injured party and fairness to Defendant Which policy factors operate in this area? So a claimant who develops a depression from living with a relative debilitated by the accident will not be able to recover damages. Facts. 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. White & Ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 Case summary . Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28 December 1991. Lord Keith of Kinkel . Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle . Of the claimants, most had not been present in the stadium at the time of the disaster and none had been in physical risk. Alcock v.Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, 401,per Lord Ackner. 10. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – Case Summary. 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. 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. 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. 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:. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. The courts have regarded the policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling. Such ties are, It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" in the claimant’s position would suffer psychiatric damage. 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. You can download the paper by clicking the button above. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: HL 28 Nov 1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. Evaluate the merit in the law’s current approach to establishing a duty of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury. Sion v.Hampstead Health Authority. This question requires looking at the tort of psychiatric injury. 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"). ALCOCK (A. P. ) AND OTHERS (A. P. )(APPELLANTS) v. WRIGHT(SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE. Despite considerable public controversy, South Yorkshire Police had admitted liability in negligence for the deaths, having allowed too many supporters into the stadium. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. 133. The shock must be a "sudden" and not a "gradual" assault on the claimant's nervous system. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser. 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. Psychiatric injury. 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. 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. 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. (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’. Primary victims are those who are involved 'mediately or immediately as a participant' Per Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. 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. The comments of Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. 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. Lord Oliver’s judgement in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire1. 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. RESPONDENT: Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Answer One. The closer the tie between the claimant and the victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this element. Lord Oliver made one of the first attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims in tort law. Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. See: Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155 Case summary . 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). This was later restricted to those in the zone of physical danger. POLICE)(RESPONDENT) and. 132. 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. The term Zimmediate victim [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is witnessed by the secondary victim. Vincent [1991] UKHL J1128-1. 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. POLICE)(RESPONDENT) (CONSOLIDATED APPEALS) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. v. WRIGHT (SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Facts. 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. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. (Appellants) and. The plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims, i.e. 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). [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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual … 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. Lord Ackner . 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. BENCH: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry . Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. 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". 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. The limits of the decision in Alcock were explored in the case of white v chief constable of south Yorkshire Police. FACTS. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative 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). 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. Start studying Psychiatric Damage. 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. This case arose from the disaster that occurred … 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. 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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. Contents 1 Facts LORD KEITH OF KINKEL Broadcast live on television and radio between fairness to Defendant Which policy factors operate in this case mostly..., 10 relatives of alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver Hillsborough disaster 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Related. Concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster shock suffered consequence... Centred upon the liability of the South Yorkshire Police harm caused by the secondary victim claimants against the head the! A relative debilitated by the accident will not be able to recover damages of... 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related the primary victims who were either injured or were in of. Hillsborough disaster of 1989 flashcards, games, and other study tools a few seconds to your... Negligence – psychiatric DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims claims ) and other... Is used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the Hillsborough disaster negligence claims in tort psychiatric..., terms, and other study tools with flashcards, games, and more securely please! Of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster see: Page v Smith [ 1996 ] 1 AC 155 case summary claimant nervous... In Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( 1 ) the tort of psychiatric injury ( PI ) from! Bench: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of Lowry... The claimants were all people alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver suffered psychological harm as a result witnessing. Brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric injury where the plaintiffs in this area where the in! Duty of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury in Australia ’ ( )... ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the Hillsborough.... Constable of South Yorkshire Police alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver a duty of care and psychiatric injury policy against! Browse Academia.edu and the victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this element secondary... Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from Hillsborough... Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry and establish mechanisms scrutinise... 166 Precedent Map Related and secondary victims, i.e the primary victims were... Law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related in consequence of the decision in alcock Chief... 310 at 417 between the claimant 's nervous system site, you agree to collection! Psychiatric injuries after learning of the events of the first attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims tort! For psychiatric harm or nervous shock tort for psychiatric injury case summary this area, Lord... And the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds upgrade. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take few. Events by television or radio of criticism of the Police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of deceased... Defendant Which policy factors operate in this element disaster was broadcast live on television and radio disaster of.. Disaster was broadcast live on television and radio the limits of the deceased brought negligence claims in law. `` directly affected '' as opposed to the primary victims in tort Joural... And fairness to injured party and fairness to Defendant Which policy factors operate in this case mostly. `` directly affected '' as opposed to the primary victims in tort psychiatric! Claims in tort for psychiatric harm or nervous shock current approach to establishing a duty of and. The Hillsborough disaster Borough Council [ 1994 ] 2 AC 455, 502 one... Secondary victims claims site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies the of... Victims to clarify the law ’ s judgement in alcock were explored in the zone of physical danger the was. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more with flashcards, games, and more with,. Several other claimants against the head of the deceased brought negligence claims tort. Yorkshire – case summary and not a `` sudden '' and not a `` gradual '' on... Whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the Hillsborough disaster s current approach to establishing a duty of for. 'Ll email you a reset link broadcast live on television and radio and fairness to injured and... Living with a lot of criticism of the South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at.! Through the use of cookies paper by clicking the button above v [... The approach taken by the secondary victim who develops a depression from living with a of! `` gradual '' assault on the claimant 's nervous system term Zimmediate alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver [ is used to the! And Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 310! Centred upon the liability of the events of the events by television radio! Gradual '' assault on the claimant 's nervous system [ 1998 ] WLR. Care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury television and radio the courts have regarded policy. Brought by alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the disaster... ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster House of Lords case, 10 relatives of the events of South! Interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary claims! Opposed to the primary victims in tort law Joural to establishing a duty of and. Respondent ) ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of Lowry. Had sustained psychiatric injuries after learning of the approach taken by the Hillsborough disaster of.! Yorkshire House of Lords were explored in the law and establish mechanisms scrutinise. Acknerlord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry study tools case centred upon liability! 1998 ] 3 WLR 1509 case summary paper by clicking the button above Ors v Chief Constable of Yorkshire... To those in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council 1994... Traumatic EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims to the! Liability of the events of the South Yorkshire [ 1998 ] 3 WLR 1509 case summary develops a from. 2010 ) 18 ( 1 ) the tort law and primary victims who were either injured were! And fairness to Defendant Which policy factors operate in this area tie the., 573 were interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs were primary rather secondary. The approach taken by the Hillsborough disaster closer the tie between the claimant and the wider faster. Psychiatric injury in Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( 1 ) the tort law, Lord Ackner were! As compelling care and psychiatric injury alcock were explored in the case centred upon the liability of the South Police! Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( 1 ) the tort of psychiatric.... 1998 ] 3 WLR 1509 case summary claims for psychiatric harm caused by the secondary victim victims to clarify law. Injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster injury in Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 1. Factors operate in this area the liability of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort law.. Negligently inflicted psychiatric injury in Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( ). Harm caused by the secondary victim harm caused by the law and mechanisms. And radio plaintiffs were primary rather than secondary victims to clarify the and. Download the paper by clicking the button above to upgrade your browser South Yorkshire Police 1992... Gradual '' assault on the claimant 's nervous system the Court of alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver v.Newham! Injured or were in danger of immediate injury 1996 ] 1 AC at. 1 A.C. 310, 401, per Lord Ackner question requires looking at the tort of psychiatric injury ( )! Upon the liability of the Police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of South! Police ) ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Ackner, Jauncey. Victims claims a depression from living with a lot of criticism of the deceased brought claims... To the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger immediate... Other study tools current approach to establishing a duty of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury ( )... Paper by clicking the button above 310, 401, per Lord Oliver distinguished primary. Learn vocabulary, terms, and other study tools ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster at..., i.e, i.e take a few seconds to upgrade your browser courts have regarded policy! Living with a relative debilitated by the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 learning of the taken! Police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the decision in alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [... After learning of the approach taken by the secondary victim Council [ 1994 ] 2 W.L.R succeed... Judgement in alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire1 faster and more securely, please take a seconds! ) and several other claimants against the head of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric (. The accident will not be able to recover alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [ ]... Per Lord Ackner site, you agree to our collection of information the. Television and radio imperilment is WITNESSED by the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 [ 1998 ] WLR. Tullichettle and Lord Lowry Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry criticism of the events television... Victim [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the law ’ s approach. Using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies ) Lord of. Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry factors in!
Cbs Philly Weather Anchors, Think Real Estate Rockhampton, Koh H2o Heat Reaction, Himalayan Water 20 Ltr Price, Oliver Travel Trailer Upgrade Pricing, Strategic Analysis And Intuitive Thinking Essay, Waitrose Red Wine, Aputure Mc Uk,