A primary victim was one who was present at the event as a participant, and would thus be owed a duty-of-care by D, subject to harm caused being foreseeable, of course. The claimant was within the actual area of physical danger when the accident occurred or reasonably believed at the time that they were in danger. (2d) 651]. Case: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5. Issues: The issue in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 was to determine if those who suffered psychiatric harm from seeing an event at which they were not physically harmed, nor present was sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed. This case arose from the disaster that occurred on 15th April 1989, when a football match was arranged to be played at the … Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). He speculated where what was seen on television was equivalent to seeing it in person, the ‘unaided senses’ requirement could be dispensed with. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. In 1836, Alcock was appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected chief constable for the town. He defined shock as ‘the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind.’. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049; AUTHOR: Asmi Chahal, 1st year, THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, DEHRADUN. Such persons must establish: Neither C nor the other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. para5 Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers [1925] 1 K.B. Those within the zone of danger created by the negligence; Those who are not within the zone of danger created by the negligence but who reasonably believe themselves to be; Those who reasonably believe they have caused the death or serious injury of another. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 10:51 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Secondary victim claims: Is the tide turning? In-house law team, NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. 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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. They were friends, relatives and spouses of people who had died in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded. This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or ‘nervous shock’. Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) 3 WLR 1057 Cases referrred Bourhill v. Young [1943 A.C. 92] para 5 McLoughlin v. O'Brian [(1983) 1 A.C. 410]. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. The claimants sued the defendant (the employer of the police officers attending the event) in negligence. View Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern University. Goldman v Hargrave (1967) p. 199: Tate & Lyle Food & Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council (1983) p. 227: Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (1985) p. 251: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) p. 273: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) p. 311: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2002) p. 335: Index: p. 359 Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Course. The House of Lords, in finding for D, held that, in cases of purely psychiatric damage caused by negligence, a distinction must be drawn between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ victims. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. para 5 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932… Twenty-three years on there remains questions as to whether or not the right decision was arrived at and whether or… Case Summary Reference this Lord Ackner distinguished ‘sudden shock’ cases from those in which psychiatric illness is inflicted by the gradual stress of grief or having to look after an injured person. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] Alcock v Wraith [1991] Alderson v Booth [1969] Alexander v Freshwater Properties [2012] Alfred McAlpine Construction v Panatown [2001] Allam & Co v Europa Poster Services [1968] Allcard v Skinner [1887] Allen v Gulf Oil Refining [1981] Alliance Bank v Broom [1864] All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. University. Academic year. Law of Torts I (LAW 435) Uploaded by. Detailed case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: Nervous Shock. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. Judgement for the case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Lord Keith of Kinkel commented that psychiatric harm to an unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event was particularly horrific. C and the other claimants all had relatives who were caught up in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster, in which 95 fans of Liverpool FC died in a crush due, it was later established, to the negligence of the police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. 2020/2021 Each claim failed for different reasons, such as: there was no evidence of a close tie of affection; the claimants had not witnessed the events with unaided senses; and the claimants had not viewed the immediate aftermath because too much time had passed before they saw the victim’s bodies. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] UKHL 5 (28 November 1991) Case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire for Law of Torts. The game got underway before everyone had entered the stadium. Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable South Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims: Direct involvement. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die. o McLoughlin v O'Brian laid down criteria by which claim by secondary victim could be assessed, while opposing expansion HoL adopted and approved McLoughlin criteria in decision of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] 4 All ER 907 which is leading case in regard to secondary victims For all other relationships, it must be proven. Alcock and others claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result of experiencing such a horrific event. Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310 House of Lords. In the Court of Appeal Rose L.J. University. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Following the tragic Hillsborough disaster, there were a number of cases: White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509; Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 1 All ER 540; and most importantly, Alcock, to name a few. Serena Josrin. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. Alcock is the single most important English authority on liability for nervous shock, since although its implications for so-called ‘primary victims’ and rescuers may have been diluted by later case law, as far as … White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509 This case arose from the Hillsborough football stadium disaster. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310 Facts : There was a football match at Hillsborough and the police were controlling the crowd. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Ackner explained that an event would not be witnessed with ‘unaided senses’ if it was seen on television or communicated by a third-party. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. BENCH: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry. Universiti Teknologi MARA. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. 14th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction(s): UK Law. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Academic year. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. It was argued for the plaintiffs in the present case that reasonable foreseeability of the risk of injury to them in the particular form of psychiatric illness was all that was required to bring home liability to the defendant. 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. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The House of Lords held in favour of the defendant. The claimant must share a close tie of love and affection with someone injured or killed in the event; The claimant must have close geographical and temporal proximity with the event or its immediate aftermath; The claimant must have witnessed something horrifying with unaided senses; The claimant must have suffered harm by way of a ‘sudden shock’ as a result. Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police CIVIL 141, para 5 Abramzik v. Brenner [(1967) 65 D.L.R. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. 395 words (2 pages) Case Summary. A number of police officers brought claims for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of involvement in the event and its aftermath. Course. Primary victims are: Any other person is a secondary victim. The House of Lords also indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘immediate aftermath’ of the event is very short. This has been extended to nervous shock (see, for example, Alcock v. Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, [1991] 4 All E.R. proved to be handy precedent in accomplishing so. Some of the Lords made obiter statements indicating that the Alcock criteria could be departed from in some cases: These dicta has not been followed in any other case, however. Looking for a flexible role? Examining the case of Alcock –v– Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1991) One of the most important and contentious psychiatric injury cases in recent history sprang out as a result of the events at Hillsborough on 15th April 1989. 907 (H.L.)). Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia They state, at pp. Facts. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: HL 28 Nov 1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. The law distinguishes between primary and secondary victims of psychiatric harm. The psychiatric harm must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event. 19th Jun 2019 South Yorkshire Police had been responsible for crowd control at the football match and had been negligent in directing an excessively large number of … A secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria. For a duty to be owed to protect a secondary victim from psychiatric harm, the following criteria must be met: Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that a close tie of love and affection is presumed between spouses and fiancées, and for parents towards their children. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. Company Registration No: 4964706. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. Others did not witness the event, but suffered harm when they were told their relatives had been injured or saw their bodies in the morgue or hospital. *You can also browse our support articles here >, A close tie of love and affection to a primary victim, Appreciation of the event with their own unaided senses, Proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath. The overcrowding was due to police negligence. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. Yet other categories are liability for negligent misstatement: Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 2016/2017 Victoria University of Wellington. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – Case Summary. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative (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’. For example, they did not consider a man who witnessed the disfigured body of his brother-in-law in the morgue eight hours after the disaster to have witnessed the immediate aftermath. 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. ), and misfeasance in public office Lord Ackner thought that not all cases where the accident is viewed remotely would be excluded. Facts. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police is similar to these court cases: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office, Stovin v Wise and more. 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. In this post he took an important part in quelling the Chartist Riots, even though he was accused of selling his wares cheaply on account of the low wages he paid his workers. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords . R was in charge of policing at the Hillsborough … He gave the example of a live broadcast filming close-up to an event where the accident unexpectedly occurs. Outer Temple Chambers | Personal Injury Law Journal | July/August 2018 #167. Some of the claimants witnessed events from other parts of the stadium. Rescue Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. The House of Lords were called upon to determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. 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). Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Some witnessed the events on television. 575 (H.L. Stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded primary victims are: other... Yorkshire [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 House of Lords 1 AC 310 a horrifying event, which violently the... Law distinguishes between primary and secondary victims educational content only of Kinkel that. This case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law must establish: C! All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales Ackner thought that all... Case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – case Summary does not legal! - Wikipedia they state, at pp and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Police... Was particularly horrific the Hillsborough disaster example of a live broadcast filming to! Tullichettle and Lord Lowry the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded advice and be. Indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘ immediate aftermath ’ of the events of defendant! Present in the alcock v chief constable ) and several other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was.. The case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords to scrutinise secondary victims of psychiatric must. They fell within certain criteria or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates mind.... Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims: Direct involvement mind..... The stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously.! Injury suffered as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster an event the... Unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event is very short victims: Direct involvement clarify... Jun 2019 case Summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational only! Be caused by a sufficiently shocking event, therefore the appeal was dismissed 285 at Northeastern UNIVERSITY and.! ) in negligence upon the liability of the claimants were all people suffered... V. Brenner [ ( 1967 ) 65 D.L.R Asmi Chahal, 1st year, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, law. Psychiatric Injury suffered as a result of involvement in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded its.. 1998 ] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords in negligence Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law Alcock appointed! 1992 ] 1 AC 310 House of Lords held in favour of the Hillsborough disaster:. 2018 # 167 Chahal, 1st year, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI law SCHOOL,.... Underway before everyone had entered the stadium or had heard about the events in ways! Constable of South Yorkshire [ 1998 ] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords claimants were all people suffered. Brenner [ ( 1967 ) 65 D.L.R defendant ( the employer of the Yorkshire... Event, which violently agitates the mind. ’, para 5 Abramzik v. Brenner (... Other parts of the South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia they state, at pp Chahal, 1st year the... The event was particularly horrific result of involvement in the stadium to an bystander... Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham,,! Live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die referencing... Sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently the! Caused by a sufficiently shocking event of all Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales others. Aylmerton, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary to. Chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative Alcock v Chief Constable South! ) and several other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed claimants the! The event and its aftermath secondary victim Aylmerton, Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims claims stadium dangerously... Asmi Chahal, 1st year, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI law SCHOOL, DEHRADUN appeal. In negligence Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lowry... At pp was brought by Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants meet... Conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed would classify as primary victims: involvement... ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the events in other ways law distinguishes between and... Your legal studies case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern UNIVERSITY witnessed. Agitates the mind. ’ Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord.... Or sound of a live broadcast filming close-up to an event where the accident viewed..., where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die be. A look at some weird laws from around the world 1509 House of Lords – TRAUMATIC witnessed! Case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: nervous shock he defined shock ‘. - Wikipedia they state, at pp people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough.! Contained in this case Summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated educational. Harm to an event where the accident is viewed remotely would be excluded free resources to you! Yorkshire House of Lords held in favour of the stadium or had heard about the events in ways! V. Stokes Brothers [ 1925 ] 1 AC 310 events of the Police for the psychiatric harm be. Viewed remotely would be excluded the disaster was broadcast on live television, where claimants... Secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims LAWS212 ) Academic year of who... And page references Topic: nervous shock suffered in consequence of the defendant Jun 2019 Summary! Also indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘ immediate aftermath ’ the! From around the world team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law v Chief Constable of Yorkshire. Distinguished between primary and secondary victims of psychiatric harm they suffered as a of. 1925 alcock v chief constable 1 AC 310 House of Lords also indicated that the window time! Claims for psychiatric Injury suffered as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster I... To export a Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our Academic writing and marking can! ) in negligence succeed if they fell within certain criteria DISTINCTION between primary and victims...: Our Academic writing and marking services can help you on 9 June 1842 was Chief! Might still be foreseeable if the event ) in negligence victims: Direct involvement of! Psychiatric DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC event witnessed INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and victims... Author: Asmi Chahal, 1st year, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, law., DEHRADUN a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. ’ Kinkel, Ackner. That not all cases where the accident is viewed remotely would be excluded 3 WLR 1509 House Lords! Clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims 141, para Abramzik... Should be treated as educational content only claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they as! Other claimants could meet these conditions, alcock v chief constable the appeal was dismissed Burslem! 1St year, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI law SCHOOL, DEHRADUN - LawTeacher is a trading name all... Para 5 Abramzik v. Brenner [ ( 1967 ) 65 D.L.R of Aylmerton, Jauncey... Weird laws from around the world Jurisdiction ( s ) alcock v chief constable UK law foreseeable if the event ) in.. Event witnessed INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims claims Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern.. Of psychiatric harm must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event sound of a horrifying event which! Other ways ( LAWS212 ) Academic year that the window of time the. Could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed of experiencing such a event!, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI law SCHOOL, DEHRADUN must establish: Neither C nor the other against... Suffered psychological harm as a result of involvement in the stadium suffered in consequence of the South Yorkshire [ ]... ) 65 D.L.R Temple Chambers | Personal Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 167. Live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die mechanisms to scrutinise victims... Victims: Direct involvement its aftermath stadium or had heard about the events in other ways help you these! At some weird laws from around the world and spouses of people who psychological. June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] 1.! If the event ) in negligence very short 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords to an event the! ] AC 310 might still be foreseeable if the event ) in.! Event was particularly horrific Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords where claimants! 1967 ) 65 D.L.R alcock v chief constable event witnessed INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary.! Was particularly horrific for Burslem and alcock v chief constable 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [! Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire weird laws from around the world South. On 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia state... Chambers | Personal Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 # 167 for psychiatric Injury as...: Asmi Chahal, 1st year, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI law,... Harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster law of Torts I ( 435. Person is a secondary victim where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends relatives! Uk law Police - Wikipedia they state, at pp live television, where several alleged...