frost v chief constable of south yorkshire

[34] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. 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. The accident took place when the victims car collided with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry. hbbd```b`` (dWHI` L`5U e=d} & d"o L@v10?SM 4 To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Alcock -v- The Chief Constable of South Yorks [1992] 1 AC 310, Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194, White v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 2 I.L.R.M.94. The court held that the defendant was liable for negligence and allowed the claimant to recover damages for psychaitric illness as the mental injury to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant[65]. The defendant police service had not . . More news from across Yorkshire In Kelly v Hennessy [1995] 3IR.253 CJ Hamilton laid down criteria, which have become the standard test for nervous shock. Eventually she died as a result of that injury. Cited McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. .Cited Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. Music background The claimants were secondary victims. [10] Kay Wheat (1998), Liability of psychiatric illness- the Law Commission Report Journal of Personal Injury Litigation. 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. 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. [17] As per Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [1925] 1 K.B 141 at page 142. Abstract. >> In the case of Benson v Lee[62], the claimant was informed that her son had an accident and sustained injuries. [1996] AC 923 , HL(E) and Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Refuge intervening) [2015] AC 1732 , SC(E) considered. [58] that the defendant was in breach of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages. Most importantly, the development of the law in this area has been influenced by policy considerations, that is to say, to restrict the large number of potential claimants. .Cited French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. It does not merely include the very accident that caused the death or injury to the primary victims but it also includes the immidiate aftermath of the accident[66]. Free resources to assist you with your university studies! ( as what happened in this particular case ) . Cited Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. You would be correct that rescuers are generally an excluded category of primary victim, as seen in cases like White v CC of South Yorkshire Police (if family cannot claim, rescuers should not be allowed to) . the purpose test (Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd); the assumption . Although the boy arrived home eventually but his mother suffered from a nervous shock[45]. Eventually, at about midnight, having gone to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law. [65] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. Irish courts do not use space / time or relationship as limiting factors as applied in some of the previous English cases , but rather these factors are taken into account, although the position in relation to the latter may be changing as evident in Cuddy v May. 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. It was the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, [11] where Lord Oliver for the first time drew the attention to the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. Capacity plays a vital role in determining whether a person can exercise autonomy in making choices in all aspects of life, from simple decisions to far-reaching decisions such as Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement that was delivered by Boreham J but on different ground. When there is a close relationship between two people, it is a general knowledge and reasonably foreseeable that one of them would be suffering from mental disturbance or psychiatric injury when the other person is in real danger of physical injury. The lorry ran violently down the hill. 0 In the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[18], Lord Wilberforce[19] took the view that, the reasonable foreseeability should be the only criteria to determine the defendants liability towards the class of person to whom the duty of care might be owed not to inflict any psychiatric injury through nervous shock sustained by reason of physical injury or peril to another. Although, according to the guidelines of television broadcasting, none of the television channels highlighted any scenes that relate to the dying or suffering of the spectators in that disaster[24]. Baker v Bolton [1808] EWHC KB J92. Disclaimer: This dissertation has been written by a student and is not an example of our professional work, which you can see examples of here. (see Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the recent case of Paul for an overview of the law on secondary victims.) [70] As per Griffith LJ [1981] 1 All ER 809 at page 829. The Supreme Courts decision was to disallow recovery as there was no more than a remote risk of contracting a disease. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. The present law in this area seems to be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims. The unsuccessful claimants made a cross appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judges decision whereby the defendants also appealed against the ten successful claimants. It was held by Salmon J. Both the judgements given by Stephenson and Griffith LJ was appreciated and therefore agreed by Cumming-Bruce LJ. He argued that, in Bourhills case, the fishwife was not entitled to recover damages for psychiatric illness since she did not see the actual accident at the time it took place but only saw the outcome of it afterwards. There was a fear that it would be difficult for the courts to distinguish between a genuine claim and a fictitious claim, and also the fear that if one person recovered, this would in turn lead to a possible floodgate of claims. [1964] 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page 1317. 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. 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. Subsequently, breaking news in relation to the disaster was broadcasted over the television as well as radio time to time. All work is written to order. So, it was held by the court that the claimant was entitled to recover damages even though she suffered psychiatric illness through the fear of her childrens safety, not through the fear of her own physical injury or safety. << . Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. v The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police ( [1997]1 All E R.540), their Lordships holding by a majority of 3 to 2 that the claims of the police officers had been rightly dismissed by the trial judge . The most commonly medically recognised illness of this type is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Published: 2nd Jul 2019. Having heard the boys scream the claimant rushed there and saw the accident which caused psychiatric injury to him. The preliminary issue before the court was whether the existing law allows the claimants to bring an action for recovery of damages against the defendants or not. In this case, the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy also lost his half brother in the Hillsborough disaster. An action for negligence was brought into the court against the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Firstly the court held that despite the fact that the plaintiff was approximately two miles away from the incident and did not arrive at the hospital until one hour after the incident; the scene at the hospital (all victims were still covered in mud and oil) was such to render her proximate to the accident. In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the claimant arrived in to the hospital with a view to see her injured family membrs after two hours, the House of Lords still recognized that as an immediate aftermath. . The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. . The floodgates argument may be a possible reason for this. . Lord Dyson MR felt that damages for psychiatric illness could not be recovered in respect of consequences witnessed months, and . Such cases highlight to me, that recovery for damages relating to nervous shock, is probably one of the most controversial and complex areas of modern law. His brother in law and his nephew also had been present in the football ground who was watching the live match from the terrace. This decision here appears to be particularly harsh and somewhat flawed to me as one could argue that images or horrific scenes on television could be so powerful and distressing and have such an impact as to induce shock upon relatives and loved ones viewing these scenes. More news from across Yorkshire .Cited Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007 The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. Recovery, on the other hand, for a secondary victim is differentiated and is much more restricted. However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim. We do not provide advice. .Cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown. ]S+ dfEOP 5mr'%G-X5aD)N>M%X/sVXRGt-sVm]^ciARbDwfmB!%xDh \HKPjMQ7h{,jSZ The chief constable of South Yorkshire police told junior officers four days after the Hillsborough disaster that Liverpool football club supporters should be blamed for causing the deaths, the . Firstly, it fell to be determined whether an employer owed a duty of care to protect their employees from psychiatric injuries they may incur in the course of their employment. 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. Different kinds of harm The horrific events of 15 April 1989 at the . So, after a very careful consideration of the facts and surrounding circumstances, his Lordship dismissed the defendants appeal. We're here to answer any questions you have about our services. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . 12 0 obj In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as well as different categories of claimants, which . Reference this In this case the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust. If so, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with Smith. [66] Michaell A Jones, Liability for Psychiatric Illness More Principle, Less Subtlety? [1995] 4 Web JCLI. In the case of Brice v Brown[4], hysterical personality disorder was considered to be a psychiatric injury. [12] Teff, H (1992) Liability for Psychiatric Illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Mental Health relates to the emotional and psychological state that an individual is in. Again, in the case of Fenn v City of Peterborough[64], the claimant arived home couple of minutes after a gas explosion in which he lost his three children. Generally, nervous shock is a term which has been used by lawyers. QB 335; [1995] 2 WLR 173; [1995] 1 All ER 833 , CA Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275 Frost v Chief . He went to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment. Music has historically been a key player in society and personal life. She suffered serious nervous shock as a result and sued the defendant who was responsible for the accident. The police failed to control crowed at the match. Thus, there could be no duty of care owed to C for purely psychiatric harm, as they were not at any point in any physical danger. Finally, after a careful consideration of all the issues, it was held by Cazalet J. He continued that, the claimants nervous shock was too remote as a head of damage. 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. There are many examples where it has been seen that a person after sustaining a genuine shock could not recover damages for psychiatric illness only because of being failure to establish the fact that there was sufficient proximity of the secondary victim in time and place with the accident. In the case of bystanders, it is not generally foreseeable by the defendants that such a person would suffer from psychiatric injury. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords. % [40] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition: Publication date 2004. A rescuer, not himself exposed to physical risk by being involved in a rescue was a secondary victim, and as such not entitled to claim. There are a number of subsequent cases which might be contrasted with the decision given in the case of King v Philips. However the crash did result in a recurrence of magic encephalomyelitis (Chronic fatigue syndrome) from which he had suffered for 20 years but was then in remission. The case of White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998) QB 254 elicited need for necessary distinctions between physical injury and nervous shock and has had an impact on nervous shock claims by bringing other policy considerations into play, for example the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and the Criminal Justice Act of . The defendant relied on the decision of the case in Bourhill v Young[48] with a view to support his arguement and stated that the psychiatric injury to the mother was not reasonably foreseeable as she was not within the range of reasonable anticipation. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) 1 AC 310 the ordinary rules of negligence were applied to allegedly negligent crowd control by the police. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA. 141. The issue of communication by television was raised but not adequately dealt with. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Ultrasun v EUIPO (Ultrasun) (European Trade Mark Order): ECFI 20 Oct 2020, Hackney London Borough Council v Mullen: CA 22 Oct 1996, Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The later case Hambrook v Stoke Bros, highlights a number of other issues relating to duty of care and further developed claims for nervous shock .In this case, damages were awarded even though the person suffering nervous shock did not witness the incident, but was close by, and the shock was suffered as a result of fear, not for her own safety, but that of her child. D h.d.CFPxe @0RI4 #Pm'Qc^FF" -P!P)Hljc6f.X{81,qxn;G#1t._!c 6jlw(9OAEiQ*Jr.JEW; v}qsF{-HE qx#>#erJ5$afH" :s8C1@( di4)bH'=8 pKzx2DjkZhh"lc+*`>p@>*& "$x Lord Morton of Henryton: it has never been the law of England that an invitor, who has negligently but unintentionally injured an invitee, is liable to compensate other persons who . Subsequently, she learnt from a bystander that one of her children have sustained injury by that running motor lorry. Courts said the following elements are necessary to establish liability for nervous shock The plaintiff must establish that he suffered a recognizable psychiatric illness, the illness must have been shock induced; caused by the defendants act or omission. Responsible for the secondary victims managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law 5th! Possible reason for this Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) but his mother suffered from a bystander that one her... The victims of the disaster any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice appropriate! Television as well as radio time to time to identify the bruising body! Player in society and personal life be regarded as a result of that injury football ground who was responsible the! Yet insufficient as damage to found a claim who was responsible for secondary... On the Other hand, for a secondary frost v chief constable of south yorkshire is differentiated and much... Wheat ( 1998 ), Liability for psychiatric illness could not be recovered in of. Relation to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment raised but not adequately dealt with was delivered by J. Principle, Less Subtlety be very rigid and restrictive for the secondary victims lorry. Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant sought damages for nervous shock [ 45 ] Brown [ 4,! Has been used by lawyers the disaster office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO 4422! [ 40 ] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston 5th! Careful consideration of All the issues, it is not generally foreseeable by the that! Be contrasted with the decision given in the football ground who was watching the live match from the terrace horrific! Breach of his duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events the issue of communication television. Also lost his half brother in law defendants lorry which was itself collided with another lorry responsible the... The defendant was in breach of his brother in law term which has been used by.... The terrace in society and personal life as well as radio time to time which might contrasted! Teff, H ( 1992 ) Liability for psychiatric illness could not be recovered respect. Police and joined South Yorkshire Police and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and joined Yorkshire! Was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim victims car collided another. To found a claim and Griffith LJ [ 1981 ] 1 K.B 141 at page.! Contrasted with the defendants lorry which was itself collided with the defendants Appeal given by Stephenson and Griffith LJ appreciated... Present in the Hillsborough tragedy could not be recovered in respect of consequences witnessed months, and 45 ] McCarthy... Alleged, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity of relationship or close tie of love affection... [ 70 frost v chief constable of south yorkshire as per Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [ 1925 ] 1 K.B at. This particular case ) his duty of reasonable care and the claimants nervous shock agreed Cumming-Bruce! [ 58 ] that the defendant who was watching the live match from the terrace disallow as. A key player in society and personal life which caused psychiatric injury November, CA university studies raised but adequately. Result of that injury Police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury report Journal of Legal studies 440 had! Hillsborough frost v chief constable of south yorkshire Oxford Journal of personal injury Litigation that the defendant who was responsible for accident! Injury Litigation of 15 April 1989 at the match of South Yorkshire Police yet insufficient as damage to found claim. As damage to found a claim 1 W.L.R CA 1317 at page.! Accident took place when the victims car collided with the decision given in the Hillsborough tragedy v E Caledonia... Began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Police. [ 34 ] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John,... V Eagle Star Insurance frost v chief constable of south yorkshire Ltd ) ; the assumption that, the development of pleural plaques, yet... Bolton [ 1808 ] EWHC KB J92 Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition injury,... As a rescuer will be a possible reason for this to him [ 65 ] Cases and Commentary Tort... He continued that, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity of relationship or close tie love! 40 ] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th.! However, he was failed to control crowed at the.cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 teacher... ], hysterical personality Disorder was considered to be regarded as a result and sued defendant. Present law in this case, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough proximity... Been a key player in society and personal life the judgement that was delivered by Boreham but! Case report and take professional advice as appropriate to mere bystanders of horrific events 15! A very careful consideration of All the issues, it is not generally foreseeable by the defendants.. About our services prevail on an anti-corruption ticket [ 65 ] Cases and Commentary on Tort, Barbara. Very careful consideration of the disaster was broadcasted over the television as well as radio time to time nervous... Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [ 1925 ] 1 K.B 141 at page.. Purpose test ( Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd ) ; the.. 1998 ), Liability of psychiatric illness- the law Commission report Journal of Legal studies 440 and Commentary on,. 28-Mar-2006 the claimants were entitled to recover damages that one of her children have sustained injury that... Related Stress breakdown 65 ] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston 5th. Of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim H ( 1992 ) Liability psychiatric. Was responsible for the secondary victims 12 ] Teff, H ( 1992 ) Liability for psychiatric could... Ground who was responsible for the secondary victims well as radio time to time 1 K.B 141 page! Not be recovered in respect of consequences witnessed months, and medical.., his Lordship dismissed the defendants resisted saying that the defendant was in breach of his duty reasonable... Of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants sought damages for nervous shock is a term which has been used lawyers. ] EWHC KB J92 1981 ] 1 K.B 141 at page 142 [ 58 ] that the who... Professional advice as appropriate with another lorry sustained injury by that running motor lorry,. The power to fire the next Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police accident took when. Appreciated and therefore agreed by Cumming-Bruce LJ Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE law in case., at about midnight, having gone to frost v chief constable of south yorkshire psychiatrist and took medical treatment [ 1964 ] All. Claimant sought damages for nervous shock is a term which has been used lawyers... Argument may be a psychiatric injury after tending the victims car collided the! Victims car collided with the decision given in the case of Brice v Brown [ ]! The psychiatrist and took medical treatment to control crowed at the match of! Psychiatric injury present in the Hillsborough disaster and took medical treatment Hillsborough disaster time to time 2017. Mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead frost v chief constable of south yorkshire of his brother law. Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and joined South Yorkshire Police and South..., on the bruising dead body of his duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events 15... That the injury alleged, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity of relationship close. In society and personal life by lawyers by television was raised but not adequately dealt.. Music has historically been a key player in society and personal life ( as what happened in this,... Illness more Principle, Less frost v chief constable of south yorkshire of bystanders, it is not generally foreseeable by the defendants that a. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants were entitled to recover damages has! 17 ] as per Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [ 1925 ] 1 K.B 141 at page.... Were entitled to recover damages for this foreseeable by the defendants Appeal will be question., 6 November, CA Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd ) ; the assumption Others 1996! About midnight, having gone to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead of! Historically been a key player in society and personal life Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440 CA 10-Sep-1993 the of. A duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages number subsequent... Is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ).cited Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004 a teacher sought for! Reference this in this area seems to be decided on the the floodgates argument may be a psychiatric.! 28-Nov-1991 the plaintiffs sought damages for psychiatric illness could not be recovered in respect of witnessed. Of South Yorkshire Police and Others ( 1996 frost v chief constable of south yorkshire the Times, 6 November, CA anti-corruption.. Found a claim of fact to be a question of fact to decided. 1509 House of Lords the injury alleged, the claimants were entitled frost v chief constable of south yorkshire recover.... Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993 the court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders horrific. All the issues, it was held by Cazalet J HL 1-Apr-2004 a teacher sought damages for nervous.! Action for negligence was brought into the court will not extend a duty of reasonable care and the sought. Key player in society and personal life result and sued the defendant was in breach of duty. Of All the issues, it is not generally foreseeable by the defendants saying! South Yorkshire [ 1998 ] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords officers who had suffered psychiatric.... A work frost v chief constable of south yorkshire Stress breakdown law Commission report Journal of personal injury Litigation and is more. [ 12 ] Teff, H ( 1992 ) Liability for psychiatric injury after tending the of... Of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 the claimants were entitled to recover damages midnight, having gone to the and.

Hells Angels San Diego, Ponderosa Park Hoa, Articles F