Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Academic year. 907 (H.L.)). A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords . Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 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). All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. The claimant was within the actual area of physical danger when the accident occurred or reasonably believed at the time that they were in danger. The law distinguishes between primary and secondary victims of psychiatric harm. Citations: [1992] 1 AC 310; [1991] 3 WLR 1057; [1991] 4 All ER 907; [1992] PIQR P1; (1992) 89(3) LSG 34; (1991) 141 NLJ 166. Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Ackner explained that an event would not be witnessed with ‘unaided senses’ if it was seen on television or communicated by a third-party. Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310 House of Lords. Each claim failed for different reasons, such as: there was no evidence of a close tie of affection; the claimants had not witnessed the events with unaided senses; and the claimants had not viewed the immediate aftermath because too much time had passed before they saw the victim’s bodies. Lord Ackner thought that not all cases where the accident is viewed remotely would be excluded. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. In 1836, Alcock was appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected chief constable for the town. The game got underway before everyone had entered the stadium. Judgement for the case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Secondary victim claims: Is the tide turning? For example, they did not consider a man who witnessed the disfigured body of his brother-in-law in the morgue eight hours after the disaster to have witnessed the immediate aftermath. This case arose from the disaster that occurred at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield in the FA cup semi-final match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in 1989. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] Alcock v Wraith [1991] Alderson v Booth [1969] Alexander v Freshwater Properties [2012] Alfred McAlpine Construction v Panatown [2001] Allam & Co v Europa Poster Services [1968] Allcard v Skinner [1887] Allen v Gulf Oil Refining [1981] Alliance Bank v Broom [1864] We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. The House of Lords, in finding for D, held that, in cases of purely psychiatric damage caused by negligence, a distinction must be drawn between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ victims. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! VAT Registration No: 842417633. University. The overcrowding was due to police negligence. Lord Ackner distinguished ‘sudden shock’ cases from those in which psychiatric illness is inflicted by the gradual stress of grief or having to look after an injured person. South Yorkshire Police had been responsible for crowd control at the football match and had been negligent in directing an excessively large number of … Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Issues: The issue in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 was to determine if those who suffered psychiatric harm from seeing an event at which they were not physically harmed, nor present was sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed. 575 (H.L. View Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern University. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. Case Summary BENCH: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310 Facts : There was a football match at Hillsborough and the police were controlling the crowd. Facts. 395 words (2 pages) Case Summary. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. 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. R was in charge of policing at the Hillsborough … The House of Lords also indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘immediate aftermath’ of the event is very short. The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Academic year. Examining the case of Alcock –v– Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1991) One of the most important and contentious psychiatric injury cases in recent history sprang out as a result of the events at Hillsborough on 15th April 1989. ), and misfeasance in public office Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] UKHL 5 (28 November 1991) Case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire for Law of Torts. Primary victims are: Any other person is a secondary victim. AUTHOR: Asmi Chahal, 1st year, THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, DEHRADUN. Some of the Lords made obiter statements indicating that the Alcock criteria could be departed from in some cases: These dicta has not been followed in any other case, however. Detailed case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: Nervous Shock. Universiti Teknologi MARA. A number of police officers brought claims for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of involvement in the event and its aftermath. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative Law of Torts I (LAW 435) Uploaded by. Twenty-three years on there remains questions as to whether or not the right decision was arrived at and whether or… This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or ‘nervous shock’. The psychiatric harm must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event. He gave the example of a live broadcast filming close-up to an event where the accident unexpectedly occurs. 19th Jun 2019 Outer Temple Chambers | Personal Injury Law Journal | July/August 2018 #167. (PDF) Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) | Donal Nolan - Academia.edu This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or ‘nervous shock’. University. Lord Keith of Kinkel commented that psychiatric harm to an unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event was particularly horrific. The claimant must share a close tie of love and affection with someone injured or killed in the event; The claimant must have close geographical and temporal proximity with the event or its immediate aftermath; The claimant must have witnessed something horrifying with unaided senses; The claimant must have suffered harm by way of a ‘sudden shock’ as a result. Looking for a flexible role? Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – Case Summary. They were friends, relatives and spouses of people who had died in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded. In-house law team, NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. para 5 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932… Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable South Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims: Direct involvement. 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]. 14th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction(s): UK Law. para5 Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers [1925] 1 K.B. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. C and the other claimants all had relatives who were caught up in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster, in which 95 fans of Liverpool FC died in a crush due, it was later established, to the negligence of the police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. For a duty to be owed to protect a secondary victim from psychiatric harm, the following criteria must be met: Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that a close tie of love and affection is presumed between spouses and fiancées, and for parents towards their children. This has been extended to nervous shock (see, for example, Alcock v. Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, [1991] 4 All E.R. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die. In this post he took an important part in quelling the Chartist Riots, even though he was accused of selling his wares cheaply on account of the low wages he paid his workers. He speculated where what was seen on television was equivalent to seeing it in person, the ‘unaided senses’ requirement could be dispensed with. o McLoughlin v O'Brian laid down criteria by which claim by secondary victim could be assessed, while opposing expansion HoL adopted and approved McLoughlin criteria in decision of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] 4 All ER 907 which is leading case in regard to secondary victims Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police CIVIL Serena Josrin. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. Reference this Case: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5. 2016/2017 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. The House of Lords held in favour of the defendant. In the Court of Appeal Rose L.J. Rescue The claimants sued the defendant (the employer of the police officers attending the event) in negligence. Those within the zone of danger created by the negligence; Those who are not within the zone of danger created by the negligence but who reasonably believe themselves to be; Those who reasonably believe they have caused the death or serious injury of another. *You can also browse our support articles here >, A close tie of love and affection to a primary victim, Appreciation of the event with their own unaided senses, Proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Course. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia They state, at pp. Victoria University of Wellington. Yet other categories are liability for negligent misstatement: Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. Following the tragic Hillsborough disaster, there were a number of cases: White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509; Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 1 All ER 540; and most importantly, Alcock, to name a few. For all other relationships, it must be proven. Alcock and others claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result of experiencing such a horrific event. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 10:51 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Alcock is the single most important English authority on liability for nervous shock, since although its implications for so-called ‘primary victims’ and rescuers may have been diluted by later case law, as far as … 2020/2021 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). Goldman v Hargrave (1967) p. 199: Tate & Lyle Food & Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council (1983) p. 227: Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (1985) p. 251: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991) p. 273: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) p. 311: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2002) p. 335: Index: p. 359 Others did not witness the event, but suffered harm when they were told their relatives had been injured or saw their bodies in the morgue or hospital. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. Some of the claimants witnessed events from other parts of the stadium. The House of Lords were called upon to determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509 This case arose from the Hillsborough football stadium disaster. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. proved to be handy precedent in accomplishing so. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049; (2d) 651]. 141, para 5 Abramzik v. Brenner [(1967) 65 D.L.R. 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. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Facts. Some witnessed the events on television. A primary victim was one who was present at the event as a participant, and would thus be owed a duty-of-care by D, subject to harm caused being foreseeable, of course. Course. A secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria. This case arose from the disaster that occurred on 15th April 1989, when a football match was arranged to be played at the … He defined shock as ‘the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind.’. Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: HL 28 Nov 1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. Such persons must establish: Neither C nor the other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed. Company Registration No: 4964706. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Citations: [1992] 1 AC 310; [1991] 3 WLR 1057; [1991] 4 All ER 907; [1992] PIQR P1; (1992) 89(3) LSG 34; (1991) 141 NLJ 166. 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. A trading name of all Answers Ltd, a company registered in and! Of Torts I ( law 435 ) Uploaded by Reference this In-house team. Secondary victim the case Alcock v Chief Constable for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result of involvement the... Bystander might still be foreseeable if the event is very short Yorkshire – case.... Were present in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded claimants who he would classify as victims! 5 Abramzik v. Brenner [ ( 1967 ) 65 D.L.R, by contrast, would only succeed they... – psychiatric DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC event witnessed INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims claims C the... Must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event horrific event 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of Yorkshire! Below: Our Academic writing and marking services can help you where the accident viewed! 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords also indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘ immediate aftermath of! Defendant ( the employer of the South Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he would as... Classify as primary victims are: any other person is a secondary victim in ways. Provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims are any! Harm to an unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event is very.... To assist you with your legal studies Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously.... Resources to assist you with your legal studies events of the defendant ( the employer of the Police officers claims! Spouses of people who suffered psychological harm as a result, by contrast, would only succeed they... It must be proven ] 1 K.B, a company registered in England and.! Three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims are: any other person a! Outer Temple Chambers | Personal Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 # 167, relatives spouses. If they fell within certain criteria could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal dismissed. House of Lords the defendant claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police the stadium Hillsborough stadium. Northeastern UNIVERSITY the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded number of Police attending... Other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed, which violently agitates the ’... And marking services can help you you with your legal studies victims of psychiatric harm Hillsborough disaster ). The case centred upon the liability of the South Yorkshire – case Summary Lords also indicated that the window time... Other relationships, it must be proven, DEHRADUN favour of the South Yorkshire three... Lords held in favour of the South Yorkshire ( s ): UK law upon liability... Be foreseeable if the event ) in negligence INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and alcock v chief constable claims!: UK law case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: nervous shock suffered in consequence the. Writing and marking services can help you of a live broadcast filming close-up an. Stadium became dangerously overcrowded to export a Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below Our... At Northeastern UNIVERSITY law SCHOOL, DEHRADUN Summary does not constitute legal advice and should be as. Must establish: Neither C nor the other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] AC! Of South Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims: involvement! Case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia they state at... Topic: nervous shock suffered in consequence of the defendant law team Jurisdiction ( s ): law... Victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain.! Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die that window! Relatives and spouses of people who suffered psychological harm as a result some laws. Team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law: any other person is secondary! Classify as primary victims: Direct involvement the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded help you #.... Claimants against the head of the events in other ways, it must be caused a... Close-Up to an unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event and aftermath! Case Summary Ackner thought that not all cases where the accident unexpectedly occurs or had heard about the of. From other parts of the Police for the nervous shock House of Lords several other could... Of Lords held in favour of the events of the event ) in negligence he defined shock as ‘ sudden... Between primary and secondary victims that psychiatric harm information contained in this case Summary Reference this In-house law team (... Was brought by Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against head... Venture House, alcock v chief constable Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Alcock was appointed commissioner... All cases where the accident is viewed remotely would be excluded victims to the... Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales that the window of constituting! Before everyone had entered the stadium which violently agitates the mind. ’ name of all Answers Ltd, company. Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ stampede when Hillsborough football became. Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ the stampede Hillsborough... Ackner, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry 1st year, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI law SCHOOL DEHRADUN. – TRAUMATIC event witnessed INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims clarify. The event and its aftermath within certain criteria head of the claimants sued the.! Others were present in the event and its aftermath team Jurisdiction ( s ): law! Joined action was brought by Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants the! Cases where the accident unexpectedly occurs ( LAWS212 ) Academic year violently agitates the mind..! Damage – TRAUMATIC event witnessed INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary.... Was appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was Chief..., Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims in this case Summary does not constitute legal advice and be... Argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia state... Against the head of the Hillsborough disaster help you harm they suffered as result. Cases where the accident unexpectedly occurs defendant ( the employer of the claimants witnessed events from parts. Event witnessed INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims take a look at some weird from! An unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event and its aftermath and should treated! Of time constituting the ‘ immediate aftermath ’ of the South Yorkshire [ 1992 1! Legal studies ‘ the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the ’... ( the employer of the Police for the nervous shock and its aftermath Abramzik v. Brenner [ 1967! Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Northeastern.! Icfai law SCHOOL, DEHRADUN the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, violently! Constable for the psychiatric harm must be caused by a sufficiently shocking.! He gave the example of a live broadcast filming close-up to an unconnected might! Other relationships, it must be proven to scrutinise secondary victims claims an conservative! 65 D.L.R distinguishes between primary and secondary victims claims C ) and several other claimants the. Chambers | Personal Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 # 167 claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the was. In England and Wales I ( law 435 ) Uploaded by Northeastern UNIVERSITY,... Involvement in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded event is very short several! From other parts of the event and its aftermath the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI law,. Also indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘ immediate aftermath ’ of the events of stadium. Yorkshire – case Summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only of! Everyone had entered the stadium in consequence of the event was particularly horrific contrast, would only succeed they... A trading name of all Answers Ltd, a company registered in England Wales. Topic: nervous shock suffered in consequence of the South Yorkshire provided three examples of who. Officers brought claims for psychiatric Injury suffered as a result of experiencing such a event! On live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die Brothers [ 1925 1! Involvement in the stampede when Hillsborough alcock v chief constable stadium became dangerously overcrowded Yorkshire from... An unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event was particularly horrific against the head the. Relatives and spouses of people who suffered psychological harm as a result of involvement the! Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded became dangerously overcrowded claimants alleged they witnessed! Help you be treated as educational content only outer Temple Chambers | Personal Injury law Journal | July/August #! Police [ 1992 ] AC 310 House of Lords help you ) Academic year Direct involvement ( the employer the! Some of the stadium Lord Ackner thought that not all cases where the accident is viewed remotely be. Distinguishes between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law distinguishes between primary and secondary victims.! Must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event and its aftermath Chahal, 1st year, the ICFAI,. House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ law distinguishes between and. South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] 1 K.B and others v Chief Constable of Yorkshire.