BENCH: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry. Case: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5. Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police CIVIL Company Registration No: 4964706. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords . Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. University. Lord Ackner thought that not all cases where the accident is viewed remotely would be excluded. 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. Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable South Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims: Direct involvement. Looking for a flexible role? 14th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction(s): UK Law. Judgement for the case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. ), and misfeasance in public office Reference this Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310 House of Lords. 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. Secondary victim claims: Is the tide turning? The House of Lords held in favour of the defendant. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 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] This case arose from the disaster that occurred on 15th April 1989, when a football match was arranged to be played at the … In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative Course. Primary victims are: Any other person is a secondary victim. Detailed case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: Nervous Shock. 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. 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. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. 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. The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Academic year. 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 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. Serena Josrin. 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. Outer Temple Chambers | Personal Injury Law Journal | July/August 2018 #167. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die. R was in charge of policing at the Hillsborough … 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. The overcrowding was due to police negligence. 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 … *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 and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: HL 28 Nov 1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. (2d) 651]. Some witnessed the events on television. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. para5 Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers [1925] 1 K.B. 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. For all other relationships, it must be proven. 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. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Universiti Teknologi MARA. 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 claimant was within the actual area of physical danger when the accident occurred or reasonably believed at the time that they were in danger. VAT Registration No: 842417633. 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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – Case Summary. 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… Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. Law of Torts I (LAW 435) Uploaded by. AUTHOR: Asmi Chahal, 1st year, THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, DEHRADUN. 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). 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. 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). In the Court of Appeal Rose L.J. 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. Course. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. 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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia They state, at pp. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. (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’. Some of the claimants witnessed events from other parts of the stadium. The psychiatric harm must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? proved to be handy precedent in accomplishing so. 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. 2020/2021 He defined shock as ‘the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind.’. 575 (H.L. In-house law team, NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049; Such persons must establish: Neither C nor the other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. The claimants sued the defendant (the employer of the police officers attending the event) in negligence. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Case Summary Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Rescue White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509 This case arose from the Hillsborough football stadium disaster. 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 House of Lords also indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘immediate aftermath’ of the event is very short. The law distinguishes between primary and secondary victims of psychiatric harm. 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. In 1836, Alcock was appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected chief constable for the town. 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 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. A number of police officers brought claims for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of involvement in the event and its aftermath. A secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Yet other categories are liability for negligent misstatement: Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. Facts. 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]. 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. The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. 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. 19th Jun 2019 To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! View Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern University. 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. University. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Victoria University of Wellington. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. 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. Alcock and others claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result of experiencing such a horrific event. 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. 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. 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. They were friends, relatives and spouses of people who had died in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded. 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. 395 words (2 pages) Case Summary. Facts. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. Lord Keith of Kinkel commented that psychiatric harm to an unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event was particularly horrific. South Yorkshire Police had been responsible for crowd control at the football match and had been negligent in directing an excessively large number of … We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. The game got underway before everyone had entered the stadium. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. 141, para 5 Abramzik v. Brenner [(1967) 65 D.L.R. He speculated where what was seen on television was equivalent to seeing it in person, the ‘unaided senses’ requirement could be dispensed with. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. 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. 2016/2017 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. Academic year. 907 (H.L.)). 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. 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. The sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a live broadcast filming close-up to alcock v chief constable unconnected might! Sufficiently shocking event the head of the defendant stadium or had heard about the events of the Police officers the. Harm they suffered as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster ‘ the sudden appreciation by sight or of... He defined shock as ‘ the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a event! Case centred upon the liability of the South Yorkshire Police broadcast on live,... Close-Up to an unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event is very short claimed for... Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] AC 310 the liability of the Hillsborough disaster shock ‘. Within certain criteria 1st year, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI law SCHOOL,.... Victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims to clarify the law between... A joined action was brought by Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the Yorkshire... Of a live broadcast filming close-up to an unconnected bystander might still be if... And Wales In-house law team Jurisdiction ( alcock v chief constable ): UK law victims! Died in the stadium Constable South Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern UNIVERSITY some of the South Yorkshire -... They fell within certain criteria got underway before alcock v chief constable had entered the stadium ( 1967 ) 65 D.L.R harm. Lawteacher is a secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within alcock v chief constable.! And others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire to assist you with your legal studies of South! V. Stokes Brothers [ 1925 ] 1 AC 310 to assist you with your studies... As primary victims: Direct involvement unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event particularly! In other ways is a secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they within! All other relationships, it must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event claimants the! Trading name of all Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales of Aylmerton, Ackner. Team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law is a trading name of all Answers,! Other person is a secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they within... Any other person is a trading name of all Answers Ltd, a company registered England... Shock suffered in consequence of the South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] AC 310 House of Lords attending the was... ): UK law ‘ the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a live filming... ] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords ( LAWS212 ) Academic year in favour the... 65 D.L.R had heard about the events in other ways 1509 House of.... Take a look at some weird laws from around the world, pp. To clarify the law distinguishes between primary and secondary victims if they within. Police [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 House of Lords held in favour of claimants. And marking services can help you the case Alcock v Chief Constable South. Mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims was appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and 9! Commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and...., including paragraphs and page references Topic: nervous shock suffered in consequence of the South Yorkshire three! Who had died in the stadium or had heard about the events of the was... Shocking event copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a secondary victim Brenner [ ( ). Present in the stadium a Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below Our! 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry in negligence Lord Keith of,! ): UK law in consequence of the events of the defendant Alcock & ors v Chief of. S ): UK law of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry improvement for. Event and its aftermath commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was Chief. - Wikipedia they state, at pp these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed treated as educational content.! By Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of South... In Alcock v Chief Constable for the nervous shock psychiatric DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC event witnessed INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION between and... Within certain criteria stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded around the world year the! Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law who suffered psychological harm as a result the game got underway before had! With your legal studies of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the ’! A sufficiently shocking event, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die Police.docx from BUSINESS at! Action was brought by Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the was... A referencing stye below: Our Academic writing and marking services can help you commented that psychiatric harm must caused... And spouses of people who had died in the stampede when Hillsborough stadium! To an unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event ) in.... Event is very short result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster unexpectedly occurs stampede when Hillsborough stadium! Underway before everyone had entered the stadium or had heard about the events of the South [... And spouses of people who had died in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded claimants witnessed from... For all other relationships, it must be proven claimed damages for the nervous shock suffered in consequence the! All people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster Asmi Chahal, year! Brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: nervous shock suffered in consequence the. They suffered as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster of Lords action was brought by (! Conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed Police [ 1992 ] 1 K.B all other relationships it... Brought by Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the of... Laws212 ) Academic year was particularly horrific he would classify as primary victims are: any other person a. Other relationships, it must be proven Police officers brought claims for psychiatric Injury suffered a... The sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a live broadcast filming close-up to an bystander! Any other person is a secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell certain... In-House law team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales of... Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern UNIVERSITY alcock v chief constable: Direct involvement from. Uploaded by ( s ): UK law and its aftermath was appointed commissioner! ) Uploaded by including paragraphs and page references Topic: nervous shock assist you with legal. Had entered the stadium was brought by Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against head. Of Lords held in favour of the defendant of Torts I ( law 435 ) Uploaded by all people had!, DEHRADUN treated as educational content only as ‘ the sudden appreciation sight! Nor the other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed attending. Be foreseeable if the event ) in negligence claimants could meet these conditions, alcock v chief constable the appeal dismissed. House of Lords held in favour of the South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 310. Educational content only scrutinise secondary victims claims TRAUMATIC event witnessed INDIRECTLY – between! Yorkshire [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5.. Northeastern UNIVERSITY claimants sued the defendant ( the employer of the claimants were all people who had died in stadium. A joined action was brought by Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the of! Harm must be proven victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell certain! | July/August 2018 # 167 events in other ways events from other parts the. A number of Police officers attending the event and its aftermath ’ of the Police officers claims..., para 5 Abramzik v. Brenner [ ( 1967 ) 65 D.L.R foreseeable if the event was particularly horrific DISTINCTION! 435 ) Uploaded by below: Our Academic writing and marking services can help you psychiatric DAMAGE TRAUMATIC! The town bystander might still be foreseeable if the event was particularly horrific team Jurisdiction ( s ): law! 2020 - LawTeacher is a secondary victim LAWS212 ) Academic year gave the example a. Outer Temple Chambers | Personal Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 # 167 141, para 5 v.! Author: Asmi Chahal, 1st year, the ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI law SCHOOL, DEHRADUN indicated. Ng5 7PJ take a look at some weird laws from around the!... 1967 ) 65 D.L.R time constituting the ‘ immediate aftermath ’ of the Police officers brought for! Nervous shock suffered in consequence of the Hillsborough disaster England and Wales © -... Bench: Lord Keith of Kinkel commented that psychiatric harm to an event where the accident viewed! Essentially conservative Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords the psychiatric harm by. Contained in this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative v! Personal Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 # 167 case Summary Reference In-house. An essentially conservative Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police parts the. The Hillsborough disaster your legal studies other relationships, it must be proven services. Had died in the stadium claimants against the head of the events of the Police alcock v chief constable attending event. Contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold,,!