frost v chief constable of south yorkshire
Many of the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the television . So, in this situation- Singleton LJ. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords. At one stage, the motor lorry started off by itself and went down the incline with a high speed where the claimant left her children playing. The claimant argued that the defendant was under a duty of care to drive his taxicab carefully not to inflict any kind of physical and emotional damage to the people. Therefore the claimants appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. This was not the situation prior to this case. 12 White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police ibid. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire admitted that a duty of care was owed by his force towards those who died or suffered physical injury as a result of negligent crowd control by . These standard criteria have made it more difficult to claim damages in Irish courts. But that would be contrary to precedent and, in any event, highly controversial. Lord Goff said: because shock in its nature is capable of affecting so wide a range of people, there is a real need for the law to place some limitation upon the extent of admissible claims. 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. Held: . Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) Summary. 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. 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. In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . In my opinion, this case illustrates a change of approach in relation to nervous shock recovery. Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. Once the requirement of proximity of relationship is satisfied, the secondary victims must also establish the facts that he had physical proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath. He took the view that, since the claimant was watching the scene of the accident from quite a few distances away, so it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that if he backed his taxicab negligently the claimant would suffer a nervous shock. [1992] 1 AC 310 Lord . !L The claimants were secondary victims. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455. Abstract. [19] As per Lord Wilberforce [1883] 1 A.C. 410 at Page 411. Note White was known as Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police in the Court of Appeal] LORD GOFF My Lords, These appeals arise from further proceedings following the tragic events which occurred at the Hillsborough Football Stadium in Sheffield on 15 April 1989, when 95 spectators died and hundreds more were injured, one fatally, as . The test of reasonable foreseeability was applied and issues of space, time and relationship were considerations in determining the degree of foreseeability of psychiatric illness. .Cited McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm) CA 2002 In deciding whether a duty of care is established the court must go to the battery of tests which the House of Lords has taught us to use, namely: . In those cases the court still allowed the claimants to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury notwithstanding the fact that the secondary victims were not actually present at the scene of the accident. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . The defendant admitted that he had been negligent, but said he was not liable for the psychiatric damage as it was unforeseeable and therefore not recoverable as a head of damage .The Page v Smith case is significant in that it enhanced the distinction between primary and secondary victims. Info: 9733 words (39 pages) Dissertation The accident took place when the victims car collided with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry. [58] that the defendant was in breach of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages. Genearlly, the defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted physical injuries. In the case of Brice v Brown[4], hysterical personality disorder was considered to be a psychiatric injury. Having witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock. Music background The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. Generally, nervous shock is a term which has been used by lawyers. Another appellant, namely Robert Alcock, was present on the ground during the football match and witnessed the whole disaster from the west stand of the stadium. We and our partners share information on your use of this website to help improve your experience. Others failed the close ties of love and affection . Download Citation | Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 | Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments . Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The claimants, as secondary victims, had to satisfy the criteria for the imposition of liability formulated by the House of Lords in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . The Court of Appeal's judgment has been discussed at some length by the present authors in an earlier article, "Nervous Shock, Rescuers and Employees - Primary or Secondary Victims?" [1998] SLJS 121. 0
. The English courts frequently face claims brought by the secondary victims; as a result great deal of attention has been drawn towards the secondary victims cases[14]. Dulieu v White and Sons (1901) 2 K.B. but the court dismissed their claims for damages, claiming that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers. It was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that the claimant would suffer any kind of mental damage in such a way. The . In this instance, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster . In support of the first proposition, the defendants rely on the principles developed in a trilogy of House of Lords decisions commencing with Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, continuing with Page v Smith [1996] AC 155, and culminating in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (on . 34 [1996] 1 AC 155. Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. He successfully adduced evidence that there was a very close and intimate relationship between him and his half brothers[34]. Cited Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Foreseeability Standard to Establish NegligenceComplaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The boy sustained a very minor injury and the damage to his tricycle was nothing serious. He took the view that, there was no negligence on the part of Keith Keel but the defedant was negligent and committed a breach of his duty of care. Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310. 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. Alcock and ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310 As is well known, the case of Alcock involved claims by those who witnessed the death of their loved ones in the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. 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. Many of the 1.3 million residents of South Yorkshire have had enough. 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. They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. The plaintiffs in the case were police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium disaster. However, in this case, their Lordship took the similar opinion that, the issue of proximity of relationship should be decided on a case by case basis. endstream
endobj
startxref
Interestingly, it was also stated the purpose of the visit was to identify the body and not to aid the injured or rescue victims as in other compensation cases. 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . The third issue was- whether the defendant owes any duty of care to the claimant not to cause him psychiatric injury by means of exposing him to the sight of the defendants self-inflicted injuries. 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. hb```R !1CFAFCFAAA KP`L%T98;00`8A$B*oAjb Although the plaintiff did not suffer physical injury, the traumatic incident (a driver lost control of his team of horses and drove them into the building where the plaintiff was working behind her husbands bar) led to nervous shock and the premature birth of her child. About after two hours she was informed by a neighbour of the road accident in which her family members were involved. 56 Bourhill v YoungAlcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1943] AC 92. So, the law in this area seems to be very rigid and complicated for the secondary victims. reversed Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which found Ps were primary victims as rescuers; [7] Again, Hoffman L.J in the case of Page v Smith[8] defined psychiatric illness as a mental trauma. 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. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster . 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. Consequently, Smith was killed as he fell a few feet on to the girder below the carriageway. 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. There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the case of King v Philips. .Cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. 2 claims. Until then he had no clue about his brothers whether they are dead or alive. Consequently, actions brought by the potential claimants or the victims of psychiatric illness have often been unsuccessful for a number of reasons despite of having been suffered genuine recognized psychiatric injury[1]. The facts of this case are, on the 19th October 1973, a friend came to the claimants house to tell her of a serious accident involving her husband and three children, two hours after it had occurred. The Facts. The English law of negligence in relation to nervous shock or psychiatric illness is often considered as unfair and unsatisfactory by the defendants, claimants and even by the judges. Having heard the scream the father (claimant) rushed into the spot and found his son with his foot trapped by the cars wheel. The most commonly medically recognised illness of this type is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Only full case reports are accepted in court. [12] Teff, H (1992) Liability for Psychiatric Illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440. Both these two cases which involved the plaintiff being exposed to asbestos highlight the strictness of the Irish law in respect to such claims. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. Subsequently, breaking news in relation to the disaster was broadcasted over the television as well as radio time to time. 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. Both of them used to go out for drink once a week. 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. 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]. Over the years as claims have increased, while it is arguable, for a need for criteria to be developed , to prevent a floodgate of claims , one has to feel that some of the decisions , particularly in relation to cases such as Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police , appear to be particularly harsh , in respect of the claimants. Liverpool Irish Centre Committee Members,
Articles F
Services
Many of the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the television . So, in this situation- Singleton LJ. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords. At one stage, the motor lorry started off by itself and went down the incline with a high speed where the claimant left her children playing. The claimant argued that the defendant was under a duty of care to drive his taxicab carefully not to inflict any kind of physical and emotional damage to the people. Therefore the claimants appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. This was not the situation prior to this case. 12 White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police ibid. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire admitted that a duty of care was owed by his force towards those who died or suffered physical injury as a result of negligent crowd control by . These standard criteria have made it more difficult to claim damages in Irish courts. But that would be contrary to precedent and, in any event, highly controversial. Lord Goff said: because shock in its nature is capable of affecting so wide a range of people, there is a real need for the law to place some limitation upon the extent of admissible claims. 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. Held: . Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) Summary. 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. 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. In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . In my opinion, this case illustrates a change of approach in relation to nervous shock recovery. Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . Up until the early 20th century in England, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for nervous shock. Once the requirement of proximity of relationship is satisfied, the secondary victims must also establish the facts that he had physical proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath. He took the view that, since the claimant was watching the scene of the accident from quite a few distances away, so it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that if he backed his taxicab negligently the claimant would suffer a nervous shock. [1992] 1 AC 310 Lord . !L The claimants were secondary victims. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455. Abstract. [19] As per Lord Wilberforce [1883] 1 A.C. 410 at Page 411. Note White was known as Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police in the Court of Appeal] LORD GOFF My Lords, These appeals arise from further proceedings following the tragic events which occurred at the Hillsborough Football Stadium in Sheffield on 15 April 1989, when 95 spectators died and hundreds more were injured, one fatally, as . The test of reasonable foreseeability was applied and issues of space, time and relationship were considerations in determining the degree of foreseeability of psychiatric illness. .Cited McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm) CA 2002 In deciding whether a duty of care is established the court must go to the battery of tests which the House of Lords has taught us to use, namely: . In those cases the court still allowed the claimants to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury notwithstanding the fact that the secondary victims were not actually present at the scene of the accident. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . The defendant admitted that he had been negligent, but said he was not liable for the psychiatric damage as it was unforeseeable and therefore not recoverable as a head of damage .The Page v Smith case is significant in that it enhanced the distinction between primary and secondary victims. Info: 9733 words (39 pages) Dissertation The accident took place when the victims car collided with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry. [58] that the defendant was in breach of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages. Genearlly, the defendants are not liable to the claimants for causing psychiatric injury by means of self inflicted physical injuries. In the case of Brice v Brown[4], hysterical personality disorder was considered to be a psychiatric injury. Having witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock. Music background The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. Generally, nervous shock is a term which has been used by lawyers. Another appellant, namely Robert Alcock, was present on the ground during the football match and witnessed the whole disaster from the west stand of the stadium. We and our partners share information on your use of this website to help improve your experience. Others failed the close ties of love and affection . Download Citation | Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 | Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments . Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The claimants, as secondary victims, had to satisfy the criteria for the imposition of liability formulated by the House of Lords in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . The Court of Appeal's judgment has been discussed at some length by the present authors in an earlier article, "Nervous Shock, Rescuers and Employees - Primary or Secondary Victims?" [1998] SLJS 121. 0 . The English courts frequently face claims brought by the secondary victims; as a result great deal of attention has been drawn towards the secondary victims cases[14]. Dulieu v White and Sons (1901) 2 K.B. but the court dismissed their claims for damages, claiming that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers. It was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant that the claimant would suffer any kind of mental damage in such a way. The . In this instance, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster . In support of the first proposition, the defendants rely on the principles developed in a trilogy of House of Lords decisions commencing with Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, continuing with Page v Smith [1996] AC 155, and culminating in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (on . 34 [1996] 1 AC 155. Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. He successfully adduced evidence that there was a very close and intimate relationship between him and his half brothers[34]. Cited Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Foreseeability Standard to Establish NegligenceComplaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The boy sustained a very minor injury and the damage to his tricycle was nothing serious. He took the view that, there was no negligence on the part of Keith Keel but the defedant was negligent and committed a breach of his duty of care. Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310. 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. Alcock and ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310 As is well known, the case of Alcock involved claims by those who witnessed the death of their loved ones in the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. 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. Many of the 1.3 million residents of South Yorkshire have had enough. 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. They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. The plaintiffs in the case were police officers who suffered psychiatric injury after witnessing the Hillsborough stadium disaster. However, in this case, their Lordship took the similar opinion that, the issue of proximity of relationship should be decided on a case by case basis. endstream endobj startxref Interestingly, it was also stated the purpose of the visit was to identify the body and not to aid the injured or rescue victims as in other compensation cases. 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . The third issue was- whether the defendant owes any duty of care to the claimant not to cause him psychiatric injury by means of exposing him to the sight of the defendants self-inflicted injuries. 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. hb```R !1CFAFCFAAA KP`L%T98;00`8A$B*oAjb Although the plaintiff did not suffer physical injury, the traumatic incident (a driver lost control of his team of horses and drove them into the building where the plaintiff was working behind her husbands bar) led to nervous shock and the premature birth of her child. About after two hours she was informed by a neighbour of the road accident in which her family members were involved. 56 Bourhill v YoungAlcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1943] AC 92. So, the law in this area seems to be very rigid and complicated for the secondary victims. reversed Court of Appeal decision in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1997] 1 All ER 540, which found Ps were primary victims as rescuers; [7] Again, Hoffman L.J in the case of Page v Smith[8] defined psychiatric illness as a mental trauma. 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. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster . 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. Consequently, Smith was killed as he fell a few feet on to the girder below the carriageway. 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. There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the case of King v Philips. .Cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. 2 claims. Until then he had no clue about his brothers whether they are dead or alive. Consequently, actions brought by the potential claimants or the victims of psychiatric illness have often been unsuccessful for a number of reasons despite of having been suffered genuine recognized psychiatric injury[1]. The facts of this case are, on the 19th October 1973, a friend came to the claimants house to tell her of a serious accident involving her husband and three children, two hours after it had occurred. The Facts. The English law of negligence in relation to nervous shock or psychiatric illness is often considered as unfair and unsatisfactory by the defendants, claimants and even by the judges. Having heard the scream the father (claimant) rushed into the spot and found his son with his foot trapped by the cars wheel. The most commonly medically recognised illness of this type is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Only full case reports are accepted in court. [12] Teff, H (1992) Liability for Psychiatric Illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440. Both these two cases which involved the plaintiff being exposed to asbestos highlight the strictness of the Irish law in respect to such claims. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. Subsequently, breaking news in relation to the disaster was broadcasted over the television as well as radio time to time. 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. Both of them used to go out for drink once a week. 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. 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]. Over the years as claims have increased, while it is arguable, for a need for criteria to be developed , to prevent a floodgate of claims , one has to feel that some of the decisions , particularly in relation to cases such as Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police , appear to be particularly harsh , in respect of the claimants.