frost v chief constable of south yorkshire

View examples of our professional work here. 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. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) Summary. Pages 14 Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. In this case, the claimant argued that he was entitled to recover damages for psychiatric injury as he satisfied all the additional criteria for recovery which have been laid down in the case of Alcock[38]. Among all the claimants, thirteen people lost either their relatives or friends because of death. 3 Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. Accordingly, in the case of Robertson and Rough v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board[35], the claimants brought an action against the defendants for a horrible disaster that took place on the Forth Road Bridge. [57] A Selection Of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition. After ariving to the garage, the claimant was asked by the defendant to repay the garage bills before he get his car released from that garage. That is to say, the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with the primary victims. Sixteen separate actions were brought against him by persons none of whom was present in the area where the disaster occurred, although four of them were elsewhere in the ground. After the Alcock case, the English courts have adopted a further strict approach of the requirement of close tie of love and affection when there is an issue of successful action for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. YMzBCCCBS$Gtds]1w6F[:s\mPq%`:CGqt`*SzTAER3 baP0/XlX>,eoWf0`X }@| D Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Again this development of the proximity of relationship in this case seems quite unfair to some of the claimants who were seeking compensation as they would not have been aware previously of this .The principle of proximity of time and place was also applied in this case, where a claimant failed to recover. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this dissertation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com. [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 621. The outcome of this case is particularly note worthy. After that she found her husband injured and covered with mud and oil. The House of Lords in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police clarified that rescuers are not a special category of primary victim. The Court of Appeal in Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194 (by a majority) had held that the police officers who were allowed to recover for their psychiatric illness as a result of carrying out their professional duties as rescuers and/or employees at the disastrous Hillsborough football stadium stampede were classifiable as primary victims. The accident took place when the victims car collided with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry. The term is used to describe psychiatric injury or illness which is caused by the defendant. So, it was held by the court that the claimant was entitled to recover damages even though she suffered psychiatric illness through the fear of her childrens safety, not through the fear of her own physical injury or safety. Again, in the case of Fenn v City of Peterborough[64], the claimant arived home couple of minutes after a gas explosion in which he lost his three children. He had returned to work, but again, did . This was not the situation prior to this case. Only full case reports are accepted in court. She alleged that, as result of suffering from psychiatric illness she had a change in her personality that seriously affected her capabilities as a mother and wife. Two of the plaintiffs were spectators in the ground, but not in the pens where the disaster occurred, the remainder of the plaintiffs learned of the disaster through . At the time of the accident, the claimant was at home that was two miles away from the place of the accident. the purpose test (Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd); the assumption . Steyn's introductory observations in his speech in R(S) v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [2004] 1 WLR 2196, which concerned DNA, emphasised the public benefits in law enforcement agencies using new technology at [1]- [2]: "1. CJ Keane criticized the logic of distinguishing between psychiatric illnesses resulting from a traumatic event as opposed to suffering grief in its aftermath. The 2003 decision of Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point. In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as . Moreover, Denning LJ[55] took the view that, the defendant was under a duty of care to the boy where there was a breach of that duty of care, but as far as the claimants nervous shock was concerned, it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that the claimant could be suffered from a nervous shock as a result of the accident. But he further took the view that, there is no reported English case decision where it has been established that whether a defendant owes any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing him a psychiatric injury by self inflicted injuries. The distinction between primary victim and secondary victim was made in the Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, where all claimants were secondary victims. In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the claimant arrived in to the hospital with a view to see her injured family membrs after two hours, the House of Lords still recognized that as an immediate aftermath. Only recognisable psychiatric illness would qualify for in such claims. The defendant admitted that they were negligent in relation to the death of her daughter as well as injury to her rest of the family members but simply denied any kind of liabilty for negligently causing psychiatric injury to her. Therefore the claimants appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which had found that the plaintiffs were primary victims, as rescuers. 2 claims. The lead case on secondary victim claims is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] which sets out a 4-stage test known as the control mechanisms. Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. However, Ormerod LJ. In favour of this argument the claimant relied on the decision given by the House of Lords in the case of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[46]. It was the case of King v Phillips[44] in which the claimant having suffered psychiatric illness failed to establish a claim against the defendant as the court considered that the victim was far away from the accident. Generally, primary victims do not face too many hurdles in order to establish a claim as long as certain tests are satisfied. In that case, as long as the claimants can establish that there is a kind of close tie of love with the injured person and because of having such a relationship the claimant is mentally disturbed or shocked when the loved one suffers serious physical peril or injury. %PDF-1.5 % In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. D was under a duty to take reasonable steps to protect his employees from the risk of physical harm, but there was no extension of this duty to protect C from psychiatric harm when they were not exposed to any risk of physical injury. In this case, the defendants servant negligently left a motor lorry on a street with the engine running. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for . Finally, after a careful consideration of all the issues, it was held by Cazalet J. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk. Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.80695. Cited Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey 1970 The court considered how progress is made in developing the law of liability for damages for psychiatric injury, saying The field is one in which the common law is still in course of development. The Law Commission Report, Liability for Psychiatric Illnesses, McLaughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407. In order to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness the secondary victims must satisfy the proximity of relationship[15]. Marital or parental relationship between plaintiff and . Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. .Cited James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018 The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (the Commissioner) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . Decent Essays. [10] Kay Wheat (1998), Liability of psychiatric illness- the Law Commission Report Journal of Personal Injury Litigation. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. Cited - Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991. Dulieu v White and Sons (1901) 2 K.B. The defendants car was standing inside the garage and he started backing the car out of the garage. Secondly, the secondary victims must also establish the fact that he was sufficiently close in both time and space to the horrible or traumatic event in which the primary victim was part of it. *You can also browse our support articles here >. The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. Keywords: rescue; compensation for hillsborough rescuers. [41] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). While backing his car out of the garage, the defendant ran over the feet of the little boy which caused him injuries. The outcome of the Frost v Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police case, in which the House of Lords decided that the plaintiffs ( police officers) who, as a result of assisting the victims of the Hillsborough disaster ,which had been caused by negligence,( for which the Chief Constable was liable) , were not entitled to damages for nervous shock , either because their employment relationship gave rise to duties which were not owed to strangers, nor as rescuers , I feel gives credence to this statement by Lord Steyn . He continued that, the claimants nervous shock was too remote as a head of damage. [14] Secondary Victims and Nervous Shock by M Dunne (2000) BR 383. This was a case which involved a huge disaster in the Hillsborough football stadium[23]. He further took the view that, the cases where there is insufficient proximity of relationship must be very carefully considered before allowing the claimants for psychiatric injury claims[20]. . (now Lord Justice Waller) and the majority in the Court of Appeal erred in reversing him: Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 W.L.R. An employer has a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical injury. I conclude by wholeheartedly agreeing with Lord Steyns statement that The Law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify and I feel, the cases discussed in this essay clearly support my viewpoint. We're here to answer any questions you have about our services. He went to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment. The House of Lord were thus called upon to revisit the distinction between primary and secondary victims set out in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire ([1992] 1 AC 310). Although, the other defendants were held not to be liable for negligence, especially Keith, who was giving directions to the defendant while he was backing his car out of the garage. *You can also browse our support articles here >. A person will be considered as secondary victim if he was present at the scene of the horrifying event and subsequently sustained a psychiatric injury due to witnessing the accident or event in which other person was involved, although he himself was out of the range of foreseeable physical injury[10]. They took the big metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a pick up van. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . Judgment - White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued. The first is to wipe out recovery in tort for pure psychiatric injury. It appears to have played an unjustifiably large part in the . Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. The father immediately started helping his son to release his trapped foot out. Others identified bodies in temporary constructed morgues in the stadium. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA. The House of Lords however, held that for the purposes of distinction between primary and secondary victims, that rescuers were not in a special position in the law. There are a number of cases where the Courts continued to maintain that, in order to make a successful recovery of damage for psychiatric injury the secondary victims must satisfy proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with the primary victims. Cited King v Phillips CA 1952 Denning LJ said: there can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock. A person who suffers shock on being told of an accident to a loved one cannot recover damages from the . hb```R !1CFAFCFAAA KP`L%T98;00`8A$B*oAjb However, Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ. Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v OBrian required that a plaintiff must not merely suffer grief, distress or any other normal emotion, but a positive psychiatric illness. Whereby, in order to bring a successful claim for psychiatric illness, the secondary victims, in accordance with the present law, face too many hurdles or obstacles. They said that the defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Subsequently, she learnt from a bystander that one of her children have sustained injury by that running motor lorry. She suffered nervous shock that affected her pregnancy and caused her injury. CA"$a& ,@jj DCn*Bt!\&;i~(JkGAI40-,,l_66PK$UHCT)FnpdC\uJ*C.W@tjJ9mG9#=8 }+,CPkkHYUTVJ_6YGw.=t]C8yjb[(B~*bhO]ijp+2C+asL!!\Bx*V'G/8W-d8y~M=_T\$eZA The carriageway was too high that any person fell from that distance would unlikely to survive. He brought an action for negligently inflicted psychiatric illness against the defendants. The claimant appealed against the decision of the trial judge to the Court of Appeal. .Cited Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. The courts both in England and Ireland have endeavoured to limit the scope of liability for psychiatric illness, by establishing a set of criteria that a claimant/s must fulfil in order to be entitled to compensation. ~M}o"bR[ A\euA. If so, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with Smith. .Cited Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020 Nervous shock liability to third parties The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. The courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants in the Alcock case had the officers been successful in this case . In Mcloughlin case, Lord Wilberforce contrasted the closest of family ties, for instance, the relationship between husband and wife and parent and child, with the ordinary bystanders and considered the potential claimants who are entitled to bring an action against the defendants for psychiatric injury. Furthermore, the issue of measurability was a concern. Generally, the burden of proving such a close tie of love and affection lies with the person who wishes to establish a claim for psychiatric illness. Having studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons. The Second Defendant relies on the view of the majority of the House of Lords in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 (also known as Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire) that, for a rescuer to be regarded as a primary victim, it must be shown that they were exposed to the risk of physical injury or reasonably . The plaintiffs in the case were police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium disaster. Three were on duty at the ground itself; one had attempted to free spectators while the other two had attended the makeshift morgue in the gymnasium. As a result, the claimant suffered from a nervous shock. In reality there are no refined analytical tools which will enable the courts to draw lines by way of compromise solution in a way that is coherent and morally defensible. A rescuer, not himself exposed to physical risk by being involved in a rescue was a secondary victim, and as such not entitled to claim. All work is written to order. So, according to the decision given by the House of Lords in this case, the court will only allow the secondary victims to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness if the following three elements are satisfied by the claimants. [51] took the view that, if the two cases of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[52] and In re Polemis and Furness, withy & Co. Ltd[53]on which the claimant relied on are considered then the there is every possibility that the decision goes in favour of the claimant. Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] UKHL 5; Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep 271; Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 3 WLR 1194; Galt v British Railways Board (1983) 133 NLJ 870; Gregg v Ashbrae Ltd [2006] NICA 17; Hunter v British Coal Corporation [1998 . Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . A primary victim could now recover for psychiatric illness even when this is not reasonably foreseeable, so long as the physical injury, which need not actually occur, is foreseeable. This case raised two principal questions. This was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned. Before discussing the above cases, it is essential to give a brief outline of the term nervous shock and its history. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. /Filter /LZWDecode [1981] 1 All ER 809. The claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the course of his employment. In the present case, the claimants family members including her husband and three children had a severe road accident. However the crash did result in a recurrence of magic encephalomyelitis (Chronic fatigue syndrome) from which he had suffered for 20 years but was then in remission. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. Published: 21st Jan 2022. 0 In support of my opinion I will discuss and analyse the outcomes of a number of relevant law cases, namely, Dulieu v White and Son[1901]2 KB 669 , Hambrook v Stoke Bros [1925] 1 KB 141, McLoughlin v O Brian (1983) AC 410 310 AT 407, Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310, Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 AT 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd, White v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[1992]1 AC.310. On the otherhand, the defendant admitted that he was negligent in relation to the accident of the boy but he denied any kind of liability or duty of care towards the claimant as far as her psychiatric injury was concerned. The married mother-of-one began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Yorkshire Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable. The plaintiff sought medical advice and was told there was a risk that he could contract mesothelioma. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiffs claims as employees. In this case, the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy also lost his half brother in the Hillsborough disaster. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) 1 AC 310 the ordinary rules of negligence were applied to allegedly negligent crowd control by the police. As far as the claims for psychiatric illness is concerned, it was the case of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[16], where the English courts for the first time recognized a claim for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. v The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police ( [1997]1 All E R.540), their Lordships holding by a majority of 3 to 2 that the claims of the police officers had been rightly dismissed by the trial judge . .Cited Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000 A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. The defendant argued that, there was no negligence on his part as far as the claimants psychiatric illness was concerned. However, an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric injury against the defendant. He drove her to the hospital where she saw her dead daughter, and her husband and two other children seriously injured, all still covered in oil and mud. According to him, it is not necessary that such class of person, to whom the defendant owes liability, have to be spouse or parent and child. The plaintiff must show that the defendant owed duty of care not to cause the reasonably foreseeable nervous shock. In Alcock case, the House of Lords took the view that- the secondary victims will be entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury if he can establish the fact that, the defendant could have reasonably foreseen that he would suffer from a psychiatric illness due to the negligent act as there was proximity of relationship between both the primary and secondary victims. As a result of the negligence of the police department, ninety six spectators died in a massive crash and more than approximately four hundred spectators were severely injured in that accident. More news from across Yorkshire Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. Bourhill v Young[49] was a case of Edinborough fishwife who suffered nervous shock as a result of the negligence of the defendant motorcyclist who brought about a collision and made the claimant so upset that she had a miscarriage. Another claimant of this case was Rough, who was forty four years old. As soon as she arrived to the hospital, she was informed that her youngest daughter was killed. 223 0 obj <>stream [66] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. Potential claims of misfeasance in public office and libel might also be considered. The married mother-of-one began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Yorkshire Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable. denitions given by Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police[1992] are sufcient for present purposes: a primary victim is someone 'who is involved either mediately or immediately as a participant in an accident' a secondary victim is someone who is 'no more than a passive and unwilling witness of an In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. Cazalet J. agreed with the claimant that he meets all the recovery criteria that govern a claim for psychiatric injury sustained by him. Prior to this, the initial response of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility. Lord Steyn's observation in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, was that while, "the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is . Similary, the defendant argued that, in the present case, the claimant was far away from the actual place of the accident and did not see what happened there. The UK High Court has found that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) infringed the privacy of renowned musician Sir Cliff Richard (Sir Cliff) by broadcasting a raid by the South Yorkshire Police (the SYP) following an allegation of historical sexual . The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured.

Who Is Jenn Sherman Husband, What Is Amas Ltd On Bank Statement, 3 Liga Vychod Futbalnet, Uab Emsap Application, Quincy Youth Lacrosse, Articles F