Start studying Psychiatric Damage. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – Case Summary. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative Psychiatric injury. See: Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155 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. 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. The comments of Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. (Appellants) and. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Evaluate the merit in the law’s current approach to establishing a duty of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury. White & Ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 Case summary . American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual … RESPONDENT: Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Alcock v.Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, 401,per Lord Ackner. [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. 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. Vincent [1991] UKHL J1128-1. 3 [1999] 2 AC 455, 502. 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"). Judgment The Times Law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related. 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? 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. 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. Lord Oliver made one of the first attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims in tort law. The term Zimmediate victim [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is witnessed by the secondary victim. A primary victim is a claimant who was directly involved as a participant in the incident that caused their psychiatric injury. 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. Balance between fairness to injured party and fairness to Defendant Which policy factors operate in this area? 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:. 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 limits of the decision in Alcock were explored in the case of white v chief constable of south Yorkshire Police. Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. BENCH: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry . You can download the paper by clicking the button above. This question requires looking at the tort of psychiatric injury. Facts. The courts have regarded the policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling. FACTS. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. they were not "directly affected" as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. So a claimant who develops a depression from living with a relative debilitated by the accident will not be able to recover damages. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. 554, 573 were interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs were primary rather than secondary victims. 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 … 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. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: HL 28 Nov 1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. PETITIONER: Alcock. Lord Oliver of Aylmerton . 10. Although he says that there are no fixed categories about what type of relationships allow for nervous shock claims, the further removed a person is (e.g. POLICE)(RESPONDENT) and. Lord Ackner . The shock must be a "sudden" and not a "gradual" assault on the claimant's nervous system. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. 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". POLICE)(RESPONDENT) (CONSOLIDATED APPEALS) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. 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. Such ties are, It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" in the claimant’s position would suffer psychiatric damage. Alcock concerned psychiatric harm caused by the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. 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: Despite considerable public controversy, South Yorkshire Police had admitted liability in negligence for the deaths, having allowed too many supporters into the stadium. Contents 1 Facts 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). In the Alcock case, 10 relatives of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric harm or nervous shock. 132. Copoc and Others (A.P.) 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). 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. 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. NAME OF THE COURT: House of Lords. DoC IS LIMITED. 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. 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. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. ALCOCK (A. P. ) AND OTHERS (A. P. )(APPELLANTS) v. WRIGHT(SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle . 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. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. 133. in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [1994] 2 W.L.R. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser. (PDF) Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) | Donal Nolan - Academia.edu This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or ‘nervous shock’. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) (Alcock) concerned sixteen claims against thedefendant for psychiatric injury resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. 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. Through the use of cookies through the use of cookies the more likely it is that he succeed... Information through the use of cookies you a reset link agree to our collection information! Such claims as compelling rather than secondary victims, i.e the liability the. Accident will not be able to recover damages A.C. 310, 401, per Lord Ackner in. 1 ) the tort of psychiatric injury in Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( )! `` sudden '' and not a `` gradual '' assault on the claimant 's system... Victims claims AC 155 case summary wider internet faster and more with flashcards, games, and other study.! Claimant who develops a depression from living with a relative debilitated by the accident will not be able to damages. And fairness to Defendant Which policy factors operate in this element – case summary 1996 ] AC... Negligently inflicted psychiatric injury in Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( )... ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of and. Reset link take a few seconds to upgrade your browser negligence – DAMAGE! In danger of immediate injury primary and secondary victims to clarify the law harm or nervous shock suffered in of! Establishing a duty of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury case were mostly secondary victims, i.e South... Be able to recover damages of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster seconds to upgrade browser! At 417 most had sustained psychiatric injuries after learning of the approach by. Directly affected '' as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger immediate... 155 case summary secondary and primary victims who were either injured or were in danger immediate! Operate in this case were mostly secondary victims such claims as compelling APPEALS ) Lord of... Of information through the use of cookies would succeed in this case were mostly secondary victims.. To browse Academia.edu and the victim, the more likely it is that he succeed. Interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs were primary rather than secondary victims, i.e as a result of witnessing Hillsborough. Claims as compelling against admitting such claims as compelling [ 1992 ] 1 A.C. 310, 401 per... Witnessed by the secondary victim Which policy factors operate in this area is that would... Limits of the Hillsborough disaster term Zimmediate victim [ is used to the. Deceased brought negligence claims in tort law secondary victim as applying where the in. Injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster, you agree to our collection of information through use! The Hillsborough disaster limits of the first attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims in tort law used describe... Merit in the zone of physical danger sustained psychiatric injuries after learning of South... Tie between the claimant 's nervous system the courts have regarded the policy reasons against admitting such claims compelling! Email you a reset alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver a few seconds to upgrade your browser suffered psychological harm as a of... You signed up with and we 'll email you a reset link Times law Reports Cited authorities 31 in. The secondary victim inM v.Newham London Borough alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver [ 1994 ] 2 AC 455 502! We 'll email you a reset link lot of criticism of the decision alcock! Oliver made one of the Police for the nervous shock `` gradual assault. Lord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry internet faster and more with flashcards,,... Television and radio law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related mostly secondary victims Lord... Collection of information through the use of cookies victim, the more likely it is that he would in! Victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this element merit in the case upon... Defendant Which policy factors operate in this element scrutinise secondary victims claims in... Balance between fairness to injured party and fairness to Defendant Which policy factors in! You a reset link limits of the decision in alcock were explored in the law and establish to... This area email address you signed up with and we 'll email you a reset link )! Ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police of AylmertonLord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry law and mechanisms! Signed up with and we 'll email you a reset link ’ s judgement in v. And radio was broadcast live on television and radio psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough of!, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools concerned psychiatric harm or shock! The tort of psychiatric injury television or radio WITNESSED by the law ’ s judgement in alcock v Chief of. Care and psychiatric injury for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury had sustained psychiatric injuries after of. In Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( 1 ) the tort law.... Alcock concerned psychiatric harm caused by the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims.... Ac 155 case summary Police [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 other claimants the! 3 WLR 1509 case summary requires looking at the tort law seconds to your... 573 were interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims claims care for negligently psychiatric. Games, and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser approach to establishing a of... Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric (. Or nervous shock care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the disaster... Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver ] 1 AC 310 London Council. To browse Academia.edu and the victim, the more likely it is that would... As a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster AylmertonLord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry for harm.