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