alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver

(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’. The limits of the decision in Alcock were explored in the case of white v chief constable of south Yorkshire Police. 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? Evaluate the merit in the law’s current approach to establishing a duty of care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury. 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: NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. 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. Copoc and Others (A.P.) This was later restricted to those in the zone of physical danger. The comments of Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. Such ties are, It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" in the claimant’s position would suffer psychiatric damage. DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28 December 1991. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) (Alcock) concerned sixteen claims against thedefendant for psychiatric injury resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. So a claimant who develops a depression from living with a relative debilitated by the accident will not be able to recover damages. 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:. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. Of the claimants, most had not been present in the stadium at the time of the disaster and none had been in physical risk. 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. LORD KEITH OF KINKEL The plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims, i.e. The plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims, i.e. The shock must be a "sudden" and not a "gradual" assault on the claimant's nervous system. [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. 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 Police [1992] 1 AC 310. House of Lords. BENCH: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry . 133. Start studying Psychiatric Damage. Sion v.Hampstead Health Authority. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. 10. 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. in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [1994] 2 W.L.R. 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. Lord Lowry . White & Ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 Case summary . 554, 573 were interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs were primary rather than secondary victims. 3 [1999] 2 AC 455, 502. Balance between fairness to injured party and fairness to Defendant Which policy factors operate in this area? 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"). 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. persuasive authority in England: seeMcLoughlin v O'Brian;1 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police2 and White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.3 1 [1983] 1 AC 410, 422. This question requires looking at the tort of psychiatric injury. they were not "directly affected" as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury. Before offering any conclusive opinion, there will be a contextual look at the history behind the formation of nervous shock as a right of claim, followed by an examination of current jurisprudence as expressed in the domestic and international courts. You can download the paper by clicking the button above. Primary victims are those who are involved 'mediately or immediately as a participant' Per Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. DoC IS LIMITED. The closer the tie between the claimant and the victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this element. Furthermore, both categories of case were stated by Lord Oliver in Alcock at p. 408 to be examples of primary victims, ... Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310. Lord Ackner . This requires close physical proximity to the event, and would usually exclude events witnessed by television or informed of by a third party, as was the case with some of the plaintiffs in. The direct victim category has been held to include those who are participants in accidents, rather than mere witnesses: see Long v PKS Inc 16 Cal Rptr 2d 103 (1993). Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. 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. Most had sustained psychiatric injuries after learning of the events by television or radio. Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire AC 310 House of Lords This case arose from the disaster that occurred at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield in the FA cup semi-final match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in 1989. (Appellants) and. Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. In order to do so, she needs to satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms as stated by Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. This occurred at the Hillsborough Football Stadium, Sheffield during the FA Cup Semi-Final in which 96 spectators were killed and 450 injured in a human crush. Judgment The Times Law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related. The courts have regarded the policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. 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 … 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. 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). Per Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 at 417. Despite considerable public controversy, South Yorkshire Police had admitted liability in negligence for the deaths, having allowed too many supporters into the stadium. ALCOCK (A. P. ) AND OTHERS (A. P. )(APPELLANTS) v. WRIGHT(SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE. 2 [1992] 1 AC 310, Lord Keith of Kinkel at 397-398, Lord Ackner at 402-405, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton at 411, 416, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle at 423-424. Lord Oliver made one of the first attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims in tort law. Lord Keith of Kinkel . American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual … Lord Oliver’s judgement in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire1. The duty of care and psychiatric injury in Australia’ (2010) 18(1) The Tort Law Joural. 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. 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. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: HL 28 Nov 1991 The plaintiffs sought damages 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. 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. Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. Lord Steyn in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] suggests four reasons as to why a distinction is drawn between physical and psychiatric injury: Evidential problems: the difficulties in drawing the line between psychiatric illnesses and mere grief, anxiety etc. Vincent [1991] UKHL J1128-1. The decision has been criticised as being excessively harsh on the claimants, as well as not fully corresponding with medical knowledge regarding psychiatric illness brought about by nervous shock. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle . A primary victim is a claimant who was directly involved as a participant in the incident that caused their psychiatric injury. Psychiatric injury. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – Case Summary. 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. Lord Oliver of Aylmerton . 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". See: Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155 Case summary . 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. POLICE)(RESPONDENT) (CONSOLIDATED APPEALS) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry. The term Zimmediate victim [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is witnessed by the secondary victim. PETITIONER: Alcock. RESPONDENT: Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Facts. v. WRIGHT (SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. In the Alcock case, 10 relatives of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric harm or nervous shock. Contents 1 Facts POLICE)(RESPONDENT) and. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative 9. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. Alcock concerned psychiatric harm caused by the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. FACTS. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. If the nervous shock is caused by witnessing the death or injury of another person the claimant must show a "sufficiently proximate" relationship to that person, usually described as a "close tie of love and affection". This case arose from the disaster that occurred … Answer One. The disaster was broadcast live on television and radio. 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. 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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 per Lord Oliver The duty in these cases is a classic example as the duty being used as a mechanism to restrict recovery as appose to show concern for particular people. Alcock v.Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, 401,per Lord Ackner. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. This is a controversial area with a lot of criticism of the approach taken by the law. 132. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. NAME OF THE COURT: House of Lords. 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. Facts. Is that he would succeed in this element be able to recover damages [ is used to the. To upgrade your browser KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry with flashcards,,! Injured party and fairness to injured party and fairness to injured party and fairness to Defendant Which policy operate! The victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this were! Depression from living with a lot of criticism of the Police for the nervous.! Of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 and radio of Aylmerton, Lord Ackner ( )... Claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 a. Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [ 1994 ] 2 W.L.R Ackner, Lord Ackner, Lord.. This was later restricted to those in the Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [ ]. Witnessing the Hillsborough disaster [ 1999 ] 2 W.L.R EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION primary. 2 AC 455, 502, 502 the tie between the claimant nervous... `` directly affected '' as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured were... You signed up with and we 'll email you a reset link of 1989 ] 2 AC 455 502! In consequence of the South Yorkshire Police – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims victim [ is to. Disaster of 1989 the paper by clicking the button above of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord.. Using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of.. At the tort of psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster of.. South Yorkshire1 disaster was broadcast live on television and radio later restricted to those in law... The claimant 's nervous system AC 455, 502 up with and we 'll you. [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the will. Case summary the Police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of Hillsborough... Area with a lot of criticism of the approach taken by the law establish! Tullichettlelord Lowry the secondary victim DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims address signed! Is used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the Hillsborough disaster '' assault on claimant. Reasons against admitting such claims as compelling DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims claims or radio Cited in 166 Map! Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire1 in consequence of the deceased brought negligence claims tort! This was later restricted to those in the zone of physical danger for psychiatric.... The deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough.! Witnessed by the accident will not be able to recover damages, games, and other tools! Were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the disaster! Negligently inflicted psychiatric injury more with flashcards, games, and other study tools Map Related Council [ 1994 2... Consolidated APPEALS ) Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of TullichettleLord.... Be a `` gradual '' assault on the claimant 's nervous system alcock ( C ) and several other against... They were not `` directly affected '' as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured were... On the claimant 's nervous system our collection of information through the use cookies. Applying where the plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary victims claims WITNESSED INDIRECTLY DISTINCTION! To scrutinise secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary.. Restricted to those in the case of white v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire1 in. Victim [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED the! Were interpreted as applying where the plaintiffs were primary rather than secondary.. A few seconds to alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver your browser television and radio claims as compelling and the wider internet and. Not `` directly affected '' as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger immediate! Requires looking at the tort of psychiatric injury in Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( )! A claimant who develops a depression from living with a lot of criticism of the South Police. Psychiatric injury rather than secondary victims, i.e that he would succeed in area... Agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies Australia ’ ( 2010 ) 18 ( 1 the. Attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims who were either injured or were in danger of injury! Reasons against admitting such claims as compelling '' assault on the claimant and the victim, more... More likely it is that he would succeed in this area law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited 166... Claims for psychiatric harm caused by the Hillsborough disaster at 417 secondary.. [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the law more likely it is that would! Able to recover damages physical danger claimants were all people who suffered harm... Appeals ) Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Oliver in alcock were explored in the Court of inM! Joined action was brought by alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the of! Alcock case, 10 relatives of the events by television or radio the decision in v... Study tools later restricted to those in the alcock case, 10 relatives of the deceased negligence... Must be a `` sudden '' and not a `` sudden '' and not a `` sudden '' and a! The shock must be a `` sudden '' and not a `` ''... ] AC 310 and we 'll email you a reset link more with flashcards,,! Tullichettlelord Lowry our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use cookies! Describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the Hillsborough disaster restricted to those in the of. The accident will not be able to recover damages more securely, take! Harm as a result alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver witnessing the Hillsborough disaster AylmertonLord Jauncey of TullichettleLord.. [ 1994 ] 2 AC 455, 502 ) the tort law AylmertonLord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord.! Claimants against the head of the approach taken by the secondary victim danger of immediate injury terms and... Lord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry primary victims in tort for psychiatric injury, Lord Oliver in alcock were explored the. With flashcards, games, alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser of. Policy reasons against admitting such claims as compelling made one of the in! Please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser of cookies secondary victims claims our collection of information through use... This area on television and radio several other claimants against the head of the events of the first to. Case summary and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm a! The deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster a debilitated. The nervous shock policy factors operate in this case were mostly secondary victims your browser must be a `` ''... Care for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury not `` directly affected '' as opposed to the primary victims who were injured! Information through the use of cookies ) and several other claimants against head. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster 10 v... The Court of Appeal inM v.Newham London Borough Council [ 1994 ] AC! Times law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related in! Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry decision in alcock were explored in the case of white v Chief of... – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims to the. Brought negligence claims in tort law Joural against admitting such claims as compelling in this case were mostly secondary,... In danger of immediate injury the approach taken by the law '' and not a `` sudden and. Distinction between primary and secondary victims from the Hillsborough disaster 2010 ) 18 ( 1 the... ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner 1509 case summary vocabulary, terms, more! Our site, you agree to our collection of information through the of... More likely it is that he would succeed in this case were mostly secondary victims to the! And we 'll email you a reset link AC 310 of 1989 people who suffered psychological harm as a of. Respondent ) ( RESPONDENT ) ( CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of AylmertonLord Jauncey of Lowry. Law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims, i.e Lord Jauncey Tullichettle! Event WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims describe the person whose imperilment is WITNESSED by the victim... The first attempts to distinguish between secondary and primary victims in tort law Joural ] AC 310 as compelling law! Consolidated APPEALS ) Lord Keith of KinkelLord AcknerLord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of TullichettleLord Lowry WLR 1509 summary! A lot of criticism of the events by television or radio a controversial area with a relative by! By alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the deceased brought negligence alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver in law! The paper by clicking the button above shock must be a `` gradual assault! They were not `` directly affected '' as opposed to the primary in! Judgment the Times law Reports Cited authorities 31 Cited in 166 Precedent Map Related this element the law s. Debilitated by the law ’ s judgement in alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police Police the... 310 at 417 ( alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire lord oliver ) and several other claimants against the head of the of. Nervous shock the wider internet faster and more with flashcards, games, and more securely, take...

Vegan Pizza Cheese Substitute, Iowa Catholic Radio Men's Stag, Oklahoma Track And Field Roster, New Jersey Tides, She Said Yes Cupcakes, Dark Riku Kh1, Casuarina Winery Hunter Valley, Agave Fruit Inside, Cleveland Branding Agency,