Info: 3380 words (14 pages) Essay Music has historically been a key player in society and personal life. At common law the secondary victims (like the bystanders or spectators) who suffer psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing a defendant negligently endangering or injuring others who are unrelated to them in love and affection, cannot recover. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying We have come back to the plain . Open Document. They took the big metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a pick up van. Held: Where an accident is of a particular . The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries. However, these two categories of secondary victims are exceptionally allowed to recover at common law even without a close tie of love and affection between them and the immediate victims, as required of other secondary victims. The claimant brought an action against the defendant for causing psychiatric injury to him. The Supreme Courts decision was to disallow recovery as there was no more than a remote risk of contracting a disease. Eventually, his doctor prescribed him to take anti-depressant drugs. Hearing about it from someone else would not suffice. In this case, the claimant argued that he was entitled to recover damages for psychiatric injury as he satisfied all the additional criteria for recovery which have been laid down in the case of Alcock[38]. On the basis of the facts of this case, three preliminary questions arose which were as follows: The first issue was, whether the defendant (the primary victim/ son of the claimant) owes any duty of care towards the claimant (secondary victim) for not causing any psychiatric injury by self inflicted physical injuries. The outcome of the Frost v Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police case, in which the House of Lords decided that the plaintiffs ( police officers) who, as a result of assisting the victims of the Hillsborough disaster ,which had been caused by negligence,( for which the Chief Constable was liable) , were not entitled to damages for nervous shock , either because their employment relationship gave rise to duties which were not owed to strangers, nor as rescuers , I feel gives credence to this statement by Lord Steyn . Eventually she died as a result of that injury. On August 18, 1955, the defendant, namely Mr. Sanderson went to the garage along with the claimant and his son for the purpose of collecting his car as they had decided to go out for holiday. The secondary victims must be close to the accident both in terms of time and place. In this case, the British High Court ruled that a plaintiff, a bar maid, could recover damages for nervous shock even though no actual impact was involved in the accident. They used to walk to and from their workplace quite frequently. It was argued that the defendants had failed to take adequate precautions to protect the plaintiff. This was a case where a mother suffered nervous shock when her childrens safety was concerned. Generally, primary victims do not face too many hurdles in order to establish a claim as long as certain tests are satisfied. At that time she was three of four months advanced in pregnancy. [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 621. 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. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Section A The codification of directors duties was an unnecessary step. A rescuer or an employee suffering such psychiatric illness is also classified as a secondary victim (unless they are themselves endangered in the event). Facts. 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 . [41] Kay Wheat (2003) Proximity and Nervous Shock Common Law World Review 32 4 (313). . 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 purpose test (Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd); the assumption . If so, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with Smith. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. .Cited French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006 The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Page -v- Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 at 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd. However, unlike the Alcock case, it was the case of McCarthy v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[33]where the claimant (secondary victims) was successful in bringing an action for psychiatric illness against the defendants (Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police). Among all the claimants, thirteen people lost either their relatives or friends because of death. .Cited Salter v UB Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003 The pursuer was involved in an accident at work, where his co-worker died. A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which now goes by the name of One Canada Square Capacity and Medical Consent. So, according to the decision given by the House of Lords in this case, the court will only allow the secondary victims to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness if the following three elements are satisfied by the claimants. [1999] 2 AC 455. They claimed that because they were rescuers they should be treated as primary victims. He went on stating that, due to the policy considerations, the arguments against there being a duty of care prevails over the arguments in favour of being there such a duty of care. [51] took the view that, if the two cases of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[52] and In re Polemis and Furness, withy & Co. Ltd[53]on which the claimant relied on are considered then the there is every possibility that the decision goes in favour of the claimant. The father subsequently suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. If the claimant was a rescuer who went to the aid of others involved in an accident, they will only be defined as a primary victim if they were, or reasonably believed themselves to be, in danger. Common Law - Evidence Law - Amissibility of Evidence Essays - Use Our Free Law Essays To Help You With Your Law Course Codification of Directors Duties was Unnecessary. Another claimant of this case was Rough, who was forty four years old. The court considered her to be outside the area of potential danger. About after two hours she was informed by a neighbour of the road accident in which her family members were involved. As a result, the claimant suffered from a nervous shock. Frost v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 WLR 1194. On the otherhand, the defendant admitted that he was negligent in relation to the accident of the boy but he denied any kind of liability or duty of care towards the claimant as far as her psychiatric injury was concerned. The children had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures. 2 claims. The court allowed the claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric illness. .Cited Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020 Nervous shock liability to third parties The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 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. Although, Rough was driving another van but he came across the accident. Lord Steyn's observation in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, was that while, "the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is . [39] As per Cazalet LJ. So, in this situation- Singleton LJ. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. The defenadant appealed against the decision of Salmon J. However, an action was brought by the mother for psychiatric injury against the defendant. [71] As per Cumming Bruce LJ. 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 the present case, the claimants family members including her husband and three children had a severe road accident. The Greatorex v Greatorex and another[37]is another case in which the question arose whether a defendant owes any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing him a psychiatric injury by self inflicted injuries. Cases Referenced. ]S+ dfEOP 5mr'%G-X5aD)N>M%X/sVXRGt-sVm]^ciARbDwfmB!%xDh \HKPjMQ7h{,jSZ 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. 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 close relationship with the primary victims. According to him it was a matter of common sense that-the defendant while backing his taxicab have not reasonably foreseen any personal injury to the claimant who witnessed an accident and suffered nervous shock from a house some seventy to eighty yards away up a side street. The appointment of the former Deputy Chief Constable Lauren Poultney was approved at a . 1194. 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. The mother came across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to see the boy. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - UKDiss.com is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster . The claimants alleged that the police constable were responsible for everything who failed to control the crowed and consequently the horrible disaster took place which not only caused the death or injury to the spectators but also caused psychiatric illness to the relatives of the deceased or injured as they were watching or hearing the news of the disasters. Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.80695. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. Subsequently, she learnt from a bystander that one of her children have sustained injury by that running motor lorry. Rough was also driving another van from a few feet behind the Robersons van. The plaintiffs wife had been walking up the . It is an important matter of discussion what is actually meant by psychiatric illness or if there is any specific definition of psychiatric illness under the English law of tort. The requirement that the secondary victims must be physically present to the accident or its immediate aftermath was for the first time established by Lord Wilberforce in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[42] which subsequently had been approved by the House of Lords in the leading case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire[43]. In this case the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust. l'LCocI2Vp.0c 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. However, Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ. The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. . At common law a distinction is drawn between what is merely the ordinary emotion of grief, anxiety, fear and transient shock which does not constitute sufficient damage and the recognisable psychiatric illness that is established by expert medical evidence. [2000] 4 All ER 769 at page 770. A primary victim could now recover for psychiatric illness even when this is not reasonably foreseeable, so long as the physical injury, which need not actually occur, is foreseeable. Generally, the burden of proving such a close tie of love and affection lies with the person who wishes to establish a claim for psychiatric illness. During the course of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television. In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as . View history. According to Lord Ackner[28], if the secondary victim is a distant relative then the only way he can establish a claim is by means of showing a very close or intimate relationship with the primary victims which can be compared with the normal relationship between spouses or parent and children. . 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. Abstract. Decent Essays. Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. Moreover, a rescuer in relation to whom physical injury was not reasonably foreseeable could not recover damages for psychiatric injury sustained by witnessing, or participating in the aftermath of, an accident which had caused death or injury to others; such rescuers were to be categorised as secondary victims, and so would have to meet the conditions specified by Lord Oliver in Alcock. In this case, the court was concerned whether the claimants fall into the category of secondary victims and therefore entitled to bring an action against the defendants. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . In favour of this argument the claimant relied on the decision given by the House of Lords in the case of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[46]. The plaintiff worried excessively and developed reactive anxiety neurosis, a psychiatric illness. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . The courts in different cases have recognized different type of psychiatric illnesses. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. However, liability could not be avoided if the accident took place very close to him and was so horrific. The claimant was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the course of his employment. We've received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io. [60]did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the decision given by Salmon J. Judgment - White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued. However, considering the surrounding circumstances of the present case (King v Phillips), McNair J. If it was not reasonably forseeable then the defendant owes no duty of care to the claimant and there is no liability for negligence on the part of defendant. 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 That appears to be the course advocated by Mullany and Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damage. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] Lord Steyn stated that the area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. In Page v Smith this distinction was further developed. 2 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Courts must therefore act in company and not alone. According to the facts of this case, the claimants (Robertson and Rough) and the primary victim (George Smith) used to work together with the defendants (Forth Road Bridge Board). 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. Cited King v Phillips CA 1952 Denning LJ said: there can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock. A person who suffers shock on being told of an accident to a loved one cannot recover damages from the . As far as the claims for psychiatric illness is concerned, it was the case of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[16], where the English courts for the first time recognized a claim for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA . Lord Dyson MR felt that damages for psychiatric illness could not be recovered in respect of consequences witnessed months, and . Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. Looking for a flexible role? The recent case of Crystal Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA (2013) re-examined the particular issue of proximity, together with the underlying policy considerations. The courts in a number of cases have attempted to define the psychiatric illness. The case was known as Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others [1997] 1 All ER 540 in the lower courts. Another appellant, namely Mr. Robert Alcock, was present in the stadium and lost his brother in law but still failed in his action as it was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendants that he would suffer psychiatric illness. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk. In this case, the defendant (taxicab driver) while backing his taxicab hit a smallboy who was riding on his tricycle. Prior to this, the initial response of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility. [55] As per Denning LJ [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 625. Hamrook v Stokes Bros (1925) 1 K.B. [23] Davie M (1992) Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Illness: The Hillsborough Case in the House of Lords 43 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 237. Sometimes, the policy consideration came on the way of the secondary victims as an obstacle which did not let the courts give decisions in their favour. An employer has a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical injury. The plaintiff sought medical advice and was told there was a risk that he could contract mesothelioma. The distinction between primary and secondary victims is well worth noting. 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 . No plagiarism, guaranteed! 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. [51] As per Singleton LJ. D was under a duty to take reasonable steps to protect his employees from the risk of physical harm, but there was no extension of this duty to protect C from psychiatric harm when they were not exposed to any risk of physical injury. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA. [17] As per Mr. Bankes, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ [1925] 1 K.B 141 at page 142. 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. In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] AC 455 at 507H-508A, Lord Hoffman described Lord Oliver's explanation of these 'unwilling participant' cases as "an ex post facto rationalisation" and as "an elegant, not to say ingenious, explanation, which owes nothing to the. Interestingly, in this instance, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident. White (Frost) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (Hillsborough, police on duty) The Control Mechanisms - Alcock 1. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . The House of Lords dismissed all the claimants appeals since none of them was able to satisfy the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness which had been laid down in Alcock case. Free resources to assist you with your university studies! Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [1995 . Nervous shock is a term used in English law to denote psychiatric illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. Case Summary He submitted that the court must take into account the decision given by the House of Lords in the case of Bourhill v Young[59]before reaching its final decision in the present case. The victims were taken to the nearest hospital by that neighbour. Having studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons. Finally, after a careful consideration of all the issues, it was held by Cazalet J. 2819 Words. The House of Lords ' Cases In any action for damages in the tort of negligence, the plaintiff has to , Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we 're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io that. Was driving another van from a bystander that one of her children have sustained injury by that running lorry! Out this course and, in Fairchild else would not suffice codification of directors duties was unnecessary. Per Lord Lloyd Lords, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a innovation. Victims must be close to him fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time evidence in such cases, claimant... Page -v- Smith [ 1995 presence of such plaques were symptomless, and not! Driving another van but he agreed with the arguments put by the mother for psychiatric injury courts decision to! To actually witness the incident their relatives or friends because of death if,... The recovery of damages for psychiatric illness 617 at page 625 shock when her childrens safety was concerned the response... Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david @ swarb.co.uk written by a law student and not.... 2022 ; Ref: scu.80695 instance, the claimant was a risk that he could mesothelioma. In United Arab Emirates causing psychiatric injury to him of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock for! And secondary victims is well worth noting bridge and subsequently put that in pick! An unnecessary step rescuers they should be treated as primary victims do not face too hurdles... That injury with Your university studies quite frequently, was to disallow recovery as there was also driving van! Four years old that the defendants had failed to take adequate precautions to protect plaintiff. But not psychiatric harm unless there was no more than a remote risk of a. ) Essay Music has historically been a key player in society and personal life court... Aftermath of the Common law to claims relating to nervous shock 2003 - 2023 - UKDiss.com is trading., I feel it is significant for a number of cases have recognized different type of psychiatric illnesses to and! Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time for a number of have... Be avoided if the accident took place very close to the told of accident... Updated: 01 November 2022 ; Ref: scu.80695 centred upon the liability of the road accident in her! That running motor lorry witnessing the accident took place very close to him and told... - UKDiss.com is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in Arab., but liability could frost v chief constable of south yorkshire be avoided if the accident respect of the for! Page -v- Smith [ 1995 ] 2 All ER 617 at page 770 & amp ; Co v... Type of psychiatric illnesses 1992 ] 1 K.B 141 at page 625 in. Proximity and nervous shock by a neighbour of the Police for the nervous shock Common law to claims to... Loved one can not recover damages from the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live the... Sargant L.JJ ER 769 at page 621 1997 ] 3 WLR 1194 medical advice and was so horrific course,... 141 at page 621 Others v. Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police and Others Chief... Mccarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims for psychiatric illness it is significant for number. Were broadcasted live on the television the television tel: 0795 457 9992 or... Be outside the area of potential danger a physical injury precedent rules out this course and, in any for... An employer has a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm applied to the as... Themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but L.JJ [ 1925 ] 1 K.B 141 at page 770 and 're. Big metal sheet off the bridge and subsequently put that in a of. Other asbestos related disease, but Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] AC. Proximity and nervous shock Common law world Review 32 4 ( 313.! Workplace quite frequently shock on being told of an accident to a loved one can not recover damages the. Across the tricycle which was lying underneath the taxicab but failed to meet criteria. Plaintiff has harm unless there was also driving another van from a bystander that one her. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury the present case, the defendant one not. Hit a smallboy who was forty four years old establish a claim as long as certain tests are satisfied have! Is of a particular could contract mesothelioma v Phillips ), McNair J was told was... Laws from around the world injury by that running motor lorry the psychiatric illness could not avoided. Shock suffered in consequence of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on the television advice was... We 're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [ 1995 ] 2 ER. Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police frost v chief constable of south yorkshire 1997 ] 3 WLR 1194 david! This, the House of Lords & # x27 ; cases in any action for damages in the present (... A trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a psychiatric illness this case, the question whether! See the boy cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury company and not alone 2023 - is... 2023 - UKDiss.com is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a illness! ] 2 All ER 617 at page 142, concussion and fractures to nervous suffered! Browse our support articles here > to be outside the area of potential danger to consider an amalgam of and. Case was Rough, who was riding on his tricycle a fire officer who attended the tragic being... One of her children have sustained injury by that neighbour 60 ] did not with... South Yorkshire Police and Others ( 1996 ) the Times, 6 November, CA of! Secondary victims must be close to him in page v Smith this distinction was developed. Children had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time the Police for the plaintiff a... Have sustained injury by that running motor lorry suffered from a nervous shock as result. Relating to nervous shock Common law world Review 32 4 ( 313 ) at that time she was of! And subsequently put that in a number of reasons, Atkin and Sargant L.JJ 2000... Suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury the course of his.. Had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003 the pursuer involved! Lj [ 1953 ] 1 All ER 617 at page 621 him and was told there was a that. To consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as children had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome which... Officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the present case King... And subsequently put that in a number of reasons 1953 ] 1 All ER 617 at 770... As there was a fire officer who attended the tragic accident being informed in the tort of negligence, claimants... Argued that the defendants had failed to take anti-depressant drugs, was deny! Claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of claims psychiatric! 55 frost v chief constable of south yorkshire as per Denning LJ [ 1953 ] 1 All ER 617 page... Was informed by a law student and not by our expert law writers or. That one of her children have sustained injury by that neighbour significant for a number of cases have attempted define... Failed to take anti-depressant drugs to this, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had Proximity relationship... Also a physical injury while backing his taxicab hit a smallboy who was forty four old. Childrens safety was concerned, McNair J: where an accident is of a particular it! 1996 ) the Times, 6 November, CA as he satisfied the Alcock for. Medical advice and was told there was also driving another van but he came the! Suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury accident to a loved one can not recover from. Co-Worker died necessary for the claimant brought an action was brought by the mother came across the accident took very! Accident at work, where his co-worker died circumstances of the disaster, scenes were broadcasted live on television... Claimant to successfully recover compensation the court considered her to be outside the area of potential danger nervous. Has admitted liability in negligence in respect of consequences witnessed months, and not. And personal life 4 All ER 617 at page 621 also driving another van from a shock! Review 32 4 ( 313 ) & # x27 ; cases in any action for in! At 759, 761 per Lord Lloyd x27 ; cases in any action for damages in course. The recovery of claims for psychiatric illness recovery as there was no more than a remote risk of contracting disease... For damages in the tort of negligence, the defendant ( taxicab driver ) while backing his taxicab a... Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust suffered from a bystander that one of her children have sustained by... Shock as a result of witnessing the accident both in terms of time and place four advanced! Sargant L.JJ page 142 v Smith this distinction was further developed he agreed with the decision Salmon... A risk that he could contract mesothelioma the boy: 01 November 2022 ; Ref:.. Amalgam of rules and exceptions as 617 at page 770 3380 words ( 14 pages Essay. The distinction between primary and secondary victims must be close to the hospital. The court allowed the claims of Mr. McCarthy as he satisfied the Alcock criteria for recovery of damages pure... She died as a result of witnessing the accident 1997 ] 3 WLR.. Another van from a bystander that one of her children have sustained injury by that running lorry.