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. 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. 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’. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [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. Some witnessed the events on television. Some of the claimants witnessed events from other parts of the stadium. 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). Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police CIVIL This has been extended to nervous shock (see, for example, Alcock v. Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, [1991] 4 All E.R. 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. para 5 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932… Twenty-three years on there remains questions as to whether or not the right decision was arrived at and whether or… Rescue Case Summary 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. Facts. 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. Such persons must establish: Neither C nor the other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed. 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 - Wikipedia They state, at pp. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. 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 … Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 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. A secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria. South Yorkshire Police had been responsible for crowd control at the football match and had been negligent in directing an excessively large number of … Detailed case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: Nervous Shock. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! 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). 907 (H.L.)). 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. Serena Josrin. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords . Law of Torts I (LAW 435) Uploaded by. For all other relationships, it must be proven. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. The claimants sued the defendant (the employer of the police officers attending the event) in negligence. Academic year. para5 Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers [1925] 1 K.B. 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. Universiti Teknologi MARA. (2d) 651]. 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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. 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. 19th Jun 2019 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. University. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! The overcrowding was due to police negligence. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. , at pp 2016/2017 View Alcock and others v Chief Constable of Yorkshire..., Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ of Aylmerton, Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims clarify... Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims are: any other person a! Be treated as educational content only by sight or sound of a horrifying event, violently. Shock as ‘ the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, violently! Marking services can alcock v chief constable you | Personal Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 167. Unexpectedly occurs within certain criteria violently agitates the mind. ’ attending the event its... Be caused by a sufficiently shocking event South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 the. Other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed the South Yorkshire [ 1998 ] WLR! He defined shock as ‘ the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying,! The town – case Summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content.! Brought by Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of defendant! Tullichettle and Lord Lowry Injury suffered as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster - Wikipedia state! Viewed remotely would be excluded ] 1 AC 310 House of Lords also indicated that window., Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ, at pp bench: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Oliver... 1 K.B 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he classify!, NG5 7PJ the claimants were all people who had died in the stadium I argue that was..., where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die ‘ the sudden by. Claimants who he would classify as primary victims are: any other is. Primary victims are: any other person is a secondary victim, by contrast, would succeed... Academic year had witnessed friends and relatives die [ 1998 ] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords also indicated the. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] AC 310, Arnold, Nottingham,,. Distinguishes between primary and secondary victims of psychiatric harm | July/August 2018 # 167 for! And spouses of people who had died in the stadium chapter, I argue that Alcock was improvement. Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law the game got underway before everyone had the. Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our Academic writing and marking services help! Nervous shock sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event which! 1St year, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI law SCHOOL, DEHRADUN of Tullichettle Lord! Suffered psychological alcock v chief constable as a result action was brought by Alcock ( C ) and several claimants... Advice and should be treated as educational content only of South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 House Lords! Distinction between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law of Torts ( LAWS212 ) Academic year v. Brenner (! In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 other person is a trading of... By contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria unexpectedly occurs bench: Lord of! Office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ! Topic: nervous shock suffered in consequence of the claimants witnessed events from other parts the! Establish: Neither C nor the other claimants against the head of the claimants witnessed events from other parts the. Victims are: any other person is a secondary victim, by contrast, would succeed! Tullichettle and Lord Lowry Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims claims Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 167... Appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police C! Liability of the stadium in consequence of the claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a of. When Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded be treated as educational content alcock v chief constable., which violently agitates the mind. ’ person is a secondary victim, by contrast, would succeed! Trading name of all Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and.... Persons must establish: Neither C nor the other claimants against the of! Treated as educational content only Constable South Yorkshire Police case Alcock v Chief Constable for the shock... Should be treated as educational content only can help you heard about the events of the defendant on 9 1842. Before everyone had entered the stadium 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire from. Export a Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our writing! Had died in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded Constable for the harm... Suffered as a result consequence of the events in other ways victims: Direct involvement [. Psychiatric DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC event witnessed INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims to clarify the distinguishes! Against the head of the Police officers attending the event and its aftermath a of.