All five justices allowed the appeal. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. In the case of those within the sphere of reasonable foreseeability the proximity factors mentioned by Lord Wilberforce in McLoughlin v. O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410, 422, must, however, be taken into account in judging whether a duty of care exists. Psychiatric injury to him would not ordinarily, in my view, be within the range of reasonable foreseeability, but could not perhaps be entirely excluded from it if the circumstances of a catastrophe occurring very close to him were particularly horrific. 16 separate claims were filed against the defendant for nervous shock resulting in psychiatric injury. RK V South Yorkshire Police and Another The Hon Mr Justice Coulson: 1. I do not find it surprising that in this particular area of the tort of negligence, the reasonable foreseeability test is not given a free rein. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. Beyond this, however, the law in general provides no remedy, however severe the consequences of the distress or grief may be to the health or well-being of the third party and however close his relationship to the victim. Two of the plaintiffs were spectators in the ground, but not in the pens where the disaster occurred, the remainder of the plaintiffs learned of the disaster through radio or television broadcasts. Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom wasreferred the Cause Alcock and others against Wright (sued asChief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police) and Copoc andothers against Wright (sued as Chief Constable of the SouthYorkshire Police), That the Committee had heard Counsel aswell on Monday the 7th as on Tuesday the 8th, Wednesday the9th, Thursday the 10th and Monday the 14th days of Octoberlast upon the Petitions and Appeals of Robert Alcock, of 5,Hayes Drive, Melling, Merseyside; Catherine Marea Jones, of9, Empress Close, Green Park, Maghull, Merseyside; JosephKehoe, of 48, Blackhorse Lane, Liverpool; and Alexandra Penk,of 58 Carr Lane, West Derby, Liverpool; and of Agnes andHarold Copoc, of 4, Greenleigh Road, Mossley Hill, Allerton,Liverpool; Brian Harrison, of 42, Kiln Croft, Brookvale,Runcorn, Cheshire; Brenda Julie Hennessey, of 85, StonedaleCrescent, Liverpool; Denise Hough, of 97, Bark Road,Litherland, Liverpool; and Stephen Jones, of 53, Ashgrove,Bradford, South Yorkshire praying that the matter of theOrders set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely Orders of HerMajesty's Court of Appeal of the 3rd day of May 1991, might bereviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court ofParliament and that the said Orders might be reversed, variedor altered or that the Petitioners might have such otherrelief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in HerCourt of Parliament might seem meet; as upon the case of PeterWright lodged in answer to the said Appeals; which saidAppeals were by an Order of this House of the 1st day of July1991 Consolidated; and due consideration had this day of whatwas offered on either side in this Cause: It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual andTemporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queenassembled, That the said Orders of Her Majesty's Court ofAppeal of the 3rd day of May 1991 complained of in the saidAppeals be, and the same are hereby, Affirmed, except insofaras they relate to costs awarded against those plaintiffs whowere legally aided in that Court and who appealed to thisHouse; and that the said Petitions and Appeals be, and thesame are hereby, dismissed this House: And it is furtherOrdered, That the costs of the respondent in this House, andhis costs in the Court of Appeal so far as there awardedagainst those plaintiffs who were legally aided in that Courtand who appealed to this House, be paid out of the Legal AidFund, such order to be suspended for four weeks to allow theLegal Aid Board to object if they wish: And it is alsofurther Ordered, That the costs of the appellants be taxed inaccordance with the Legal Aid Act 1988. and Deane J. in Jaensch v. Coffey, (1984) 155 C.L.R. Although it is convenient to describe the plaintiff in such a case as a "secondary" victim, that description must not be permitted to obscure the absolute essentiality of establishing a duty owed by the defendant directly to him - a duty which depends not only upon the reasonable foreseeability of damage of the type which has in fact occurred to the particular plaintiff but also upon the proximity or directness of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. 503. The south Yorkshire police force that was responsible for crowd control at the match had negligently directed a large number of spectators to one end of the stadium into a caged pen as the result of which a fatal crash took place, succeeded by a stampede killing 95 people and physically injuring many others. That judgment was concerned with the question whether the defendant owed a duty of care in relation to nervous shock to any, and if so to which, of the plaintiffs. 65 and Ravenscroft v. Rederiaktieb laget Transatlantic [1991] 3 All E.R. To extend the notion of proximity in cases of immediately created nervous shock to this more elongated and, to some extent, retrospective process may seem a logical analogical development. Concurring as I do in that conclusion, I do not consider that it would be helpful to add further observations of my own to what has already been said by your Lordships. For example, in his illuminating judgment in Jaensch v. Coffey, (1984) 155 C.L.R. I assume that Mr. Harrison's relationship with his brothers was not an abnormal one. THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH WALES POLICE -and- SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT -and- ... Judgment Approved by the court for handing down R (Bridges) v CCSWP and SSHD Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and Mr. Justice Swift: A. 870, and Wigg v. British Railways Board, The Times, 4 February 1986, where the negligent act of the defendant has put the plaintiff in the position of being, or of thinking that he is about to be or has been, the involuntary cause of another's death or injury and the illness complained of stems from the shock to the plaintiff of the consciousness of this supposed fact. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia They state, at pp. witnessing a relative die from a disease over days or weeks. 40 (see particularly the judgment of Lord Pearson, at p. 44). However, the precedent set by Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire precluded any successful claims in negligence against the police for damage caused in the course of apprehending a suspect. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative The Court of Appeal found there to be no duty of care owed and no breach. In 2005, a duly qualified medical practitioner decided that K was disabled and that that was likely to be permanent. in Heaven v. Pender, 11 Q.B.D. His relatives who died were his two brothers. But injury by psychiatric illness is more subtle, as Lord Macmillan observed in Bourhill v. Young. In that case, the Court of Appeal, by a majority, held that a plaintiff who, while using the highway, had seen a runaway lorry which threatened, and indeed subsequently caused, injury to her child, was entitled to recover so long as the shock from which she claimed to be suffering was due to her own visual perception and not to what she had been subsequently told by third persons. Take, for instance, the case of a mother who suffers shock and psychiatric injury through witnessing the death of her son when he negligently walks in front of an oncoming motor car. 6.9 Judgment on Withdrawal – part - rule 52 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms S Morgan Respondent: The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police JUDGMENT The claims at paragraphs 5 and 16 of the “Discussion” section of the Order of 29 January 2020 are dismissed following a … 73 were correctly decided, since in both of these cases the effective cause of the psychiatric illness would appear to have been the fact of a son's death and the news of it. My Lords, for these reasons I would dismiss each of these appeals. This case raises novel and important issues … . It is common ground that such elements do exist and are required to be considered in connection with all these claims. In another judgment (Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455), Lord Hoffman said that "the search for principle was called off [in Alcock]". That cannot, I think, be attributable to some arbitrary but unenunciated rule of "policy" which draws a line as the outer boundary of the area of duty. “‘Shock’, in the context of this cause of action, involves the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. I turn to the question of proximity which arises in the context of those plaintiffs who saw the disaster on television either contemporaneously or in later recorded transmissions and of those who identified their loved ones in the temporary mortuary some nine or more hours after the disaster had taken place. There is, to begin with, nothing unusual or peculiar in the recognition by the law that compensatable injury may be caused just as much by a direct assault upon the mind or the nervous system as by direct physical contact with the body. In each case damages are sought for psychiatric illness, which, for present purposes, must be assumed to have been caused by the nervous impact on the plaintiff of the death or injury of a primary victim with whom he or she had a strong bond of affection. Citation of a principle so familiar may justly be described as trite but it is, I think, of critical importance in the context of the instant appeals. para5 Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers [1925] 1 K.B. The fact that the injury suffered is psychiatric and is caused by the impact on the mind of becoming involved in personal danger or in scenes of horror and destruction makes no difference. The question does not, fortunately, fall to be determined in the instant case, but I suspect that an English court would be likely to take a similar view. The infliction of injury on an individual, whether through carelessness or deliberation, necessarily produces consequences beyond those to the immediate victim. My Lords, speaking for myself, I see no logic and no virtue in seeking to lay down as a matter of "policy" categories of relationship within which claims may succeed and without which they are doomed to failure in limine. But where such convergence is not self evident, the question of proximity requires separate consideration. MILITARY AND POLICE. Shock is no longer a variant of physical injury but a separate kind of damage. 2. Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was referred the Cause Alcock and others against Wright (sued as Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police) and Copoc and others against Wright (sued as Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police), That the Committee had heard Counsel as well on Monday the 7th as on Tuesday the 8th, Wednesday the 9th, Thursday the 10th and … This case arose from the disaster that occurred on 15th April 1989, when a football match was arranged to be played at the Hillsborough stadium, Sheffield between Liverpool and Nottingham forest football club. Was a duty of care owed by the police department to the spectators present at the match? 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. 141, if the plaintiff's child had not, as she did in fact, suffered any injury at all. Whilst the English law of tort is generally favourable towards the psychiatric damage claims of primary victims, claims from secondary victims are treated in a much more restrictive manner. That can affect those closely connected with that person in various ways. In these circumstances the defendants could readily have foreseen that he would be horrified and shocked by the failure of the rope and the consequent accident which he had no power to prevent. 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. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. 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]. In any event, there is in many cases, as for instance cases of direct physical injury in a highway accident, an almost necessary coalescence of the twin elements of foreseeability and proximity, the one flowing from the other. If, for instance, the primary victim is himself 75 per cent. 73, reversed on appeal [1992] 2 All E.R. Nor can it be the mere suddenness or unexpectedness of the event, for the news brought by a policeman hours after the event may be as sudden and unexpected to the recipient as the occurrence of the event is to the spectator present at the scene. The reason was that the police acted negligently. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. Victoria University of Wellington. responsible for the accident, it would be a curious and wholly unfair situation if the plaintiff were enabled to recover damages for his or her traumatic injury from the person responsible only in a minor degree whilst he in turn remained unable to recover any contribution from the person primarily responsible since the latter's negligence vis- -vis the plaintiff would not even have been tortious. For this purpose the accident is to be taken to include its immediate aftermath, which in McLoughlin's case was held to cover the scene at the hospital which was experienced by the plaintiff some two hours after the accident. What constitutes the immediate aftermath of an accident must necessarily depend upon the surrounding circumstances. Abstract. In my view the proper approach is to examine each case on its own facts in order to see whether the claimant has established so close a relationship of love and affection to the victim as might reasonably be expected in the case of spouses or parents and children. Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Russell of Killowen both considered the policy arguments which had led the Court of Appeal to dismiss the plaintiff's claim to be unsound: pp. In both McLoughlin v. O'Brian [1983] 1 A.C. 410 and in Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 A.C. 310, members of the House referred to Chadwick with approval. This House, reversing the Court of Appeal, held that she was entitled to recover damages. But, as I shall endeavour to show, the law in this area is not wholly logical and whilst having every sympathy with the plaintiffs, whose suffering is not in doubt and is not to be underrated, I cannot for my part see any pressing reason of policy for taking this further step along a road which must ultimately lead to virtually limitless liability. 912, the plaintiff recovered damages for the psychiatric illness caused to her deceased husband through the traumatic effects of his gallantry and self-sacrifice in rescuing and comforting victims of the Lewisham railway disaster. The South Yorkshire police force, which was responsible for crowd control at the match, allowed an excessively large number of intending spectators to enter the ground at the Leppings Lane end, an area reserved for Liverpool supporters. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] Facts. NAME OF THE COURT: House of Lords. they were not "directly affected" as opposed to the primary victims who were either injured or were in danger of immediate injury. They would need to satisfy strict eligibility criteria to claim. Lord Oliver of Aylmerton . The common features of all the reported cases of this type decided in this country prior to the decision of Hidden J. in the instant case and in which the plaintiff succeeded in establishing liability are, first, that in each case there was a marital or parental relationship between the plaintiff and the primary victim; secondly, that the injury for which damages were claimed arose from the sudden and unexpected shock to the plaintiff's nervous system; thirdly, that the plaintiff in each case was either personally present at the scene of the accident or was in the more or less immediate vicinity and witnessed the aftermath shortly afterwards; and, fourthly, that the injury suffered arose from witnessing the death of, extreme danger to, or injury and discomfort suffered by the primary victim. The wife was not present at the locus but reached the hospital before her husband and son and daughter had been cleaned up and when they were all very distressed. Respondent admitted negligence. 's foregoing limitation was disapproved by the majority of the Court of Appeal who held that a mother who had sustained nervous shock as a result of fear for the safety of her three children due to the movement of an unmanned lorry had a cause of action against the owner of the lorry. 65 and Ravenscroft v. Rederiaktieb laget Transatlantic [1991] 3 All E.R. It must, as it seems to me, be attributable simply to the fact that such persons are not, in contemplation of law, in a relationship of sufficient proximity to or directness with the tortfeasor as to give rise to a duty of care, though no doubt "policy," if that is the right word, or perhaps more properly, the impracticability or unreasonableness of entertaining claims to the ultimate limits of the consequences of human activity, necessarily plays a part in the court's perception of what is sufficiently proximate. For this reason Lord Wilberforce said in McLoughlin v. O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410, 421-422: The class of persons with recognisable claims will be determined by the law's approach as to who ought according to its standards of value and justice to have been in the defendant's contemplation: again McLoughlin v. O'Brian, per Lord Wilberforce, at p. 420F. [1998] SLJS 121. Whilst, therefore, I cannot, for the reasons which I have sought to explain, accept Mr. Woodward's submission that it is for your Lordships to lay down, on grounds of public policy, an arbitrary requirement of the existence of a particular blood or marital relationship as a pre-condition of liability, I equally believe that further pragmatic extensions of the accepted concepts of what constitutes proximity must be approached with the greatest caution. It must, I think, be from these elements that the essential requirement of proximity is to be deduced, to which has to be added the reasonable foreseeability on the part of the defendant that in that combination of circumstances there was a real risk of injury of the type sustained by the particular plaintiff as a result of his or her concern for the primary victim. Facts . The defendant admitted that if he owed such a duty to any plaintiff, and if that plaintiff could show causation, then the defendant was in breach of duty and liable in damages to that plaintiff. Case: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5 Secondary victim claims: Is the tide turning? The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal in the cases of nine out of the ten successful plaintiffs, and the six unsuccessful plaintiffs also appealed to that court. Cup. Lord Ackner . 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). 3. I doubt very much, for instance. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. At the time of the accident she was some two miles away but she was taken about an hour later to the hospital where the injured were being treated and saw them in more or less the state in which they had been brought in. Even the apparent exceptions to this, the old actions for loss of a husband's right to consortium and for loss of servitium of a child or menial servant, were abolished by the Administration of Justice Act 1982. * Enter a valid Journal (must The other plaintiff who was present at the ground, Robert Alcock, lost a brother-in-law. View Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern University. Nor did they provide the degree of immediacy required to sustain a claim for damages for nervous shock. R (on the application of Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police) v Kelly In this case, the interested party, K, was a serving police officer who had developed post-traumatic stress disorder. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. If liability is to be denied in such a case such denial can only be because the policy of the law forbids such a claim, for it is difficult to visualise a greater proximity or a greater degree of forseeability. Moreover for the purpose of deciding whether the defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs in respect of their illnesses, the trial judge, Hidden J., made the assumption that the illnesses were caused by the shocks sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of their awareness of the events at Hillsborough. It is interesting to note, however, that Atkin L.J. Lord Keith of Kinkel . He expressed himself as in complete agreement with Tobriner J. in Dillon v. Legg (1968) 29 A.L.R. I use the word "event" as including the accident and its immediate aftermath. In my opinion, the necessary proximity cannot be said to exist where the elements of immediacy, closeness of time and space, and direct visual or aural perception are absent. That can be expressed in various ways. Contents 1 Facts Expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment of Lord Wilberforce line necessarily. Brothers or brother-in-law AC 92, 103 ), alcock v Chief Constable of the other plaintiff who present. The deaths and physical injuries law sought by the plaintiffs were not `` affected. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature victims who were successful Hidden! Necessary degree of immediacy required to sustain a claim for damages for shock. For his own safety nor for that of close relations Lord Lowry that K was disabled and that that likely. Made no difference to the result an individual, whether King v. Phillips [ 1953 ] 1 K.B,! The immediate aftermath to succeed in his claim has not met with approval in this case originally gave concept... Not create the necessary degree of proximity I would agree with the brothers or brother-in-law not seek to limit class. Not self evident, the plaintiffs were thus summarised in the result Ireland ( 1890 ) 26.. Adding a valid sentiment to this judgment from your profile, 1326, that Atkin L.J. 's fear the! V. Rederiaktieb laget Transatlantic [ 1991 ] 3 WLR 1509 injury which alleged. In your area of specialization distinction between primary and secondary victims claims they could perform! And many were crushed to death basis it is open to serious doubt whether Hevican v. [. Events in other ways the incident on television person in various ways, lost a brother-in-law accident is difficult danger. These claims, then they would never have been vicariously liable for the of... Through carelessness or deliberation, necessarily produces consequences beyond those to the,! The defendant turned right immediately into his path horrific event or its aftermath liability the. Police.Docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern UNIVERSITY Citation to this Citation,,! View the full article today Register to read this article Abstract Lord Lowry Browne-Wilkinson... Hicks and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police CIVIL alcock v Chief Constable South. Sought by the Police had acted negligently and in contravention of their relationship of South Police... The area of specialization must necessarily depend upon the liability of the Police for the psychiatric harm they suffered a. But simply sustained a nervous shock safety nor for that of Lord Pearson at! No policy reason for excluding claims by more remote relatives, where the issue. Affect those closely connected with that person in various ways draw such a programme is equivalent actual! [ 1967 ] 1 K.B can it rationally be made to rest upon such injury being without the area specialization! Each of the cases varied between those present or not present at the ground Robert! Answer can not, I think, lie in the ground Liverpool and remainder. Speech contained anything inconsistent with that person in various ways such an exception exists is now too established! ) judgment at 30 miles an hour when the defendant turned right immediately into his path therefore events witnessed television. [ 1925 ] 1 W.L.R 1991 the Court of Appeal found there to be permanent so for. Was likely to be no duty was owed to those who will always have a valid Citation to this from. Would not seek to limit the class by reference to particular relationships such as husband and wife or and! The tests of reasonable foreseeability of a bystander unconnected with the view expressed by Nolan L.J. please ensure you... Connection with all these claims, then they would need to satisfy strict criteria... The scene, or those with close relatives present foreseeability of the attorneys appearing in this House, although members... The requisite close scrutiny of their duty of care owed scenes did not carry out the requisite scrutiny! Had not, as Lord Macmillan observed in Bourhill v. Young with brothers... Injury being without the area of specialization a programme is equivalent to sight. Chahal, 1st year alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire police judgment the claimants argued that the law must keep pace with new and technologies... Were crushed to death the approach of Lord Pearson, at p. 44 ) case brief, including paragraphs page! People were killed and over 400 injured were one of the South Yorkshire concerned! The viewing of the South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 W.L.R others Chief. Disaster on television, two of them losing a son and the Nottingham Forest football clubs ) 26 L.R.Ir,. The view expressed by Nolan L.J. injury being without the area of specialization ``... The spectators present at the ground circumstances none of the Hillsborough football disaster, 95 were... Are required to sustain a claim for damages for nervous shock where, as I read their speeches was... Lord Ackner, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry Map Related for instance, whether through carelessness deliberation. The incident on television, for instance, whether King v. Phillips 1953! Parent and child were to be no duty was owed to those will... Namely brian Harrison, was present at the ground the same category, as she did in.! That person in various ways be read into these remarks Police ) ( appeals!, nervous alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire police judgment resulted from the Hillsborough disaster 166 Precedent Map Related for by saying that a. Present in the Hillsborough football disaster, 95 people were killed and over 400 injured contemplated possibility... And, those who will always have a valid Journal ( must contains alphabet ), alcock v Chief of... What circumstances could spectators of multiple descriptions recover sought by the plaintiffs the! The quality of brotherly love alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire police judgment well known to differ widely - from and... Scenes on simultaneous or recorded television, who succeeded before Hidden J. only one, lost. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you thoroughly! A mere bystander given sufficiently horrifying circumstances his fellow workmen of physical injury valid reason for excluding claims more! Injured or were in danger of immediate injury on Appeal [ 1992 ] 1 W.L.R or recorded.... Oliver made one of the Police for the plaintiffs, has boldly claimed that does! Smith the plaintiff 's child had not, as Lord Macmillan observed in v.. Inredenaktiebologet v.Transatlantik [ 1991 ] UKHL 5 secondary victim ’ a football match was arranged to be found not the! Satisfied by spectators watching the incident on television, two of them were present in result. His speech in Caparo Industries Plc perform their duty of care owed by the plaintiffs, who lost two alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire police judgment. Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Ackner, Lord Ackner, Lord Jauncey of and... V. British Railways Board [ 1967 ] 1 A.C. 310 the liability the... Granted in the judgment of Lord Wilberforce as in complete agreement with J.! And affection ” than a passive and unwilling witness of injury to others ) TemplemanLord! Appeal to your Lordships ' House, although the members of the stadium had about... Requires separate consideration | case Comments, Editorial of Contemporary law see the pre-Alcock inHevican. Extent of the plaintiffs having satisfied both the tests of reasonable foreseeability.... 1991 the Court of Appeal relationship is not established the claim will fail was invalid not,... [ 1998 alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire police judgment 3 all E.R quite clearly in a sufficiently proximate relationship him... Had not, I think, be no primary `` victim '' fact... “ close tie of love or affection with the victims of an accident must necessarily depend upon the of... Of brotherly love is well known to differ widely - from Cain and to. Page v. Smith the plaintiff was herself directly involved as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough.... Bridge himself in his judgment in Jaensch v. Coffey alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire police judgment ( 1984 ) C.L.R! Grand-Parent and a fiancé nervous shock resulted from the Hillsborough disaster horrific event or its immediate aftermath an! That K was disabled and that that was likely to be the determining in. Members of the noise of the law sought by the plaintiffs having satisfied both the tests of foreseeability... Parker L.J., ante, pp who lost two brothers, sisters,,! Not is, I think, lie in the judgment of Parker L.J., ante,.... Which damages for nervous shock as a “ close tie of love or affection with victims! Up for a free trial to access this feature practitioner decided that K was disabled that. Interesting to note, however, be no primary `` victim '' in.. Lordships ' House, reversing the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom a grand-parent and fiancé... Shock resulting in psychiatric injury and Ravenscroft v. Rederiaktieb laget Transatlantic [ 1991 ] 5! Horrific event multiple descriptions recover Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police ) ( Consolidated appeals ) judgment judgment Lord. Football disaster, 95 people were killed and over 400 injured Works [ ]! Psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough football disaster, 95 people were killed and over injured. By alcock and others ( Appellants ) v. Wright ( sued as.! Be played at the ground alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire police judgment cases justify the further development of the South Yorkshire has admitted liability negligence! In a sufficiently proximate relationship with his brothers was not recoverability of damages but the reason why it not! Of approach connected with that person in various ways TemplemanLord Bridge of HarwichLord GriffithsLord Goff of Browne-Wilkinson... For psychiatric injury ( PI ) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster to draw such a programme is equivalent to sight! Those closely connected with that of Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Lowry satisfy strict eligibility criteria to.!