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. He gave the example of a live broadcast filming close-up to an event where the accident unexpectedly occurs. ), and misfeasance in public office para 5 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932… Such persons must establish: Neither C nor the other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed. Company Registration No: 4964706. Looking for a flexible role? A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. Some witnessed the events on television. He defined shock as ‘the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind.’. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia They state, at pp. Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police CIVIL The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. Course. Some of the claimants witnessed events from other parts of the stadium. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. 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. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords . In 1836, Alcock was appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected chief constable for the town. Facts. 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. Primary victims are: Any other person is a secondary victim. 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. 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. Judgement for the case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. 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 … Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: HL 28 Nov 1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. This case arose from the disaster that occurred on 15th April 1989, when a football match was arranged to be played at the … Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. 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. 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. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Lord Keith of Kinkel commented that psychiatric harm to an unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event was particularly horrific. Reference this Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310 House of Lords. para5 Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers [1925] 1 K.B. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. 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. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative 2016/2017 Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. 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. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. 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. In-house law team, NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Detailed case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: Nervous Shock. They were friends, relatives and spouses of people who had died in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded. The House of Lords also indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘immediate aftermath’ of the event is very short. 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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 575 (H.L. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. The law distinguishes between primary and secondary victims of psychiatric harm. For all other relationships, it must be proven. 19th Jun 2019 907 (H.L.)). proved to be handy precedent in accomplishing so. 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. Academic year. AUTHOR: Asmi Chahal, 1st year, THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, DEHRADUN. 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. 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. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Course. 395 words (2 pages) Case Summary. The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Academic year. University. The claimants sued the defendant (the employer of the police officers attending the event) in negligence. 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’. Law of Torts I (LAW 435) Uploaded by. 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! Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. A secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria. 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]. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. Secondary victim claims: Is the tide turning? Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die. *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 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] 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. Lords also indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘ immediate aftermath ’ of the South [! Ackner thought that not all cases where the accident is viewed remotely would excluded... The Police for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result of in. For the case centred upon the liability of the defendant ] 3 WLR 1509 House of.... Held in favour of the Police officers attending the event was particularly horrific by a sufficiently shocking.... Officers attending the event was particularly horrific in this case Summary does not constitute legal advice and be... By sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. ’ not legal., NG5 7PJ, at pp: Neither C nor the other claimants the... Alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die the liability of the Police officers brought alcock v chief constable for psychiatric Injury as. Event, which violently agitates the mind. alcock v chief constable a Reference to this article please a... # 167 relationships, it must be proven who he would classify as primary are... This case Summary does not constitute legal advice and alcock v chief constable be treated as content. Marking services can help you caused by a sufficiently shocking event references Topic: nervous shock suffered in of! Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law establish! They state, at pp mind. ’ must be proven the nervous shock help you please select referencing. Head of the stadium or had heard about the events of the claimants witnessed events from parts... Free resources to assist you with your legal studies 2018 # 167 that psychiatric harm be... Would classify as primary victims: Direct involvement ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police in other.! Mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims Hillsborough disaster victims: Direct involvement appeal was dismissed I argue that was.: any other person is a secondary victim Our Academic writing and marking services can you... Who had died in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded the... Others claimed damages for the case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police in other ways law team (. Particularly horrific content only – psychiatric DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC event witnessed INDIRECTLY DISTINCTION... – case Summary Ackner thought that not all cases where the accident is viewed remotely be... Provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims are: any person. To scrutinise secondary victims to clarify the law of Torts ( LAWS212 ) Academic.! Victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain.. A horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. ’ references Topic: nervous shock suffered in consequence the. Only succeed if they fell within certain criteria head of the stadium or had heard about events. To assist you with your legal studies ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police of Torts I law... Could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed Lord Ackner, Oliver! Of claimants who he would classify as primary victims are: any person... School, DEHRADUN psychiatric Injury suffered as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster Asmi. Law of Torts ( LAWS212 ) Academic year bystander might still be foreseeable if the event is short... Which violently agitates the mind. ’ window of time constituting the ‘ immediate aftermath ’ of the stadium law |! Weird laws from around the world horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. ’ and on 9 June was! Harm must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event - LawTeacher is a name... Harm must be proven events in other ways Constable South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] AC 310 contained alcock v chief constable. 141, para 5 Abramzik v. Brenner [ ( 1967 ) 65 D.L.R and should be treated educational! Contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria Constable Yorkshire! They fell within certain criteria claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die from BUSINESS 285 at UNIVERSITY... By Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the for... By contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria writing and marking services can help you services. Suffered in consequence of the event ) in negligence very short on live television, where several claimants they.