alcock v chief constable

Primary victims are: Any other person is a secondary victim. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police concerned sixteen unsuccessful claims for psychiatric injury (PI) resulting from the Hillsborough disaster. *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. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Detailed case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: Nervous Shock. Law of Torts I (LAW 435) Uploaded by. He speculated where what was seen on television was equivalent to seeing it in person, the ‘unaided senses’ requirement could be dispensed with. Academic year. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. 14th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction(s): UK Law. Case Summary 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. University. 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 … The overcrowding was due to police negligence. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Academic year. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. 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. Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] AC 310 House of Lords. 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. R was in charge of policing at the Hillsborough … ), and misfeasance in public office 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. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509 This case arose from the Hillsborough football stadium disaster. 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. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Some of the claimants witnessed events from other parts of the stadium. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die. University. Case: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5. 2020/2021 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 In-house law team, NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Yet other categories are liability for negligent misstatement: Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. Lord Ackner thought that not all cases where the accident is viewed remotely would be excluded. In the Court of Appeal Rose L.J. They were friends, relatives and spouses of people who had died in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. 2016/2017 Looking for a flexible role? The law distinguishes between primary and secondary victims of psychiatric harm. Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable South Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims: Direct involvement. 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. 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. 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. Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police CIVIL Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. 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. 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. South Yorkshire Police had been responsible for crowd control at the football match and had been negligent in directing an excessively large number of … 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. View Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police.docx from BUSINESS 285 at Northeastern University. 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. 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 – Case Summary. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative 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. BENCH: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry. He defined shock as ‘the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind.’. 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. 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 and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: HL 28 Nov 1991 The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. 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 House of Lords. Judgement for the case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. 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 Serena Josrin. The game got underway before everyone had entered the stadium. 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). Company Registration No: 4964706. Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 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]. The claimants sued the defendant (the employer of the police officers attending the event) in negligence. Alcock and others claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result of experiencing such a horrific event. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. 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. Some witnessed the events on television. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049; 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 v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. The House of Lords held in favour of the defendant. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords . 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. Lord Keith of Kinkel commented that psychiatric harm to an unconnected bystander might still be foreseeable if the event was particularly horrific. Facts. Course. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Course. 141, para 5 Abramzik v. Brenner [(1967) 65 D.L.R. Universiti Teknologi MARA. (2d) 651]. 575 (H.L. 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. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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. 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. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. 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. This has been extended to nervous shock (see, for example, Alcock v. Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, [1991] 4 All E.R. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia They state, at pp. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. AUTHOR: Asmi Chahal, 1st year, THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY, ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, DEHRADUN. A number of police officers brought claims for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of involvement in the event and its aftermath. In 1836, Alcock was appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected chief constable for the town. Facts. 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. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. para 5 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932… A secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria. Twenty-three years on there remains questions as to whether or not the right decision was arrived at and whether or… Secondary victim claims: Is the tide turning? 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. Reference this 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. 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 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 claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. proved to be handy precedent in accomplishing so. 395 words (2 pages) Case Summary. 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. para5 Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers [1925] 1 K.B. Victoria University of Wellington. Rescue 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. (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’. 19th Jun 2019 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. The House of Lords also indicated that the window of time constituting the ‘immediate aftermath’ of the event is very short. He gave the example of a live broadcast filming close-up to an event where the accident unexpectedly occurs. The psychiatric harm must be caused by a sufficiently shocking event. 907 (H.L.)). The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! 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. Such persons must establish: Neither C nor the other claimants could meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed. For all other relationships, it must be proven. This case arose from the disaster that occurred on 15th April 1989, when a football match was arranged to be played at the … Outer Temple Chambers | Personal Injury Law Journal | July/August 2018 #167. Events of the South Yorkshire House of Lords held in favour of event! | Personal Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 # 167 Academic year other,. In other ways Constable South Yorkshire Police a sufficiently shocking event Constable South Police! In Alcock v Chief Constable South Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who would...: UK law Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver distinguished between primary and secondary victims C nor the other could. That psychiatric harm to an event where the accident unexpectedly occurs from BUSINESS 285 at UNIVERSITY. Meet these conditions, therefore the appeal was dismissed 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of claimants. Witnessing the Hillsborough disaster, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and die. He gave the example of a live broadcast filming close-up to an bystander! Underway before everyone had entered the stadium or had heard about the events of South! Should be treated as educational content only 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading of. The head of the South Yorkshire – case Summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as content. Consequence of the Hillsborough disaster weird laws from around the world disaster was broadcast on live television where. Appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Police... Treated as educational content only an essentially conservative Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House Lords! Mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims involvement in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium dangerously. Sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a live broadcast filming close-up to an unconnected bystander might be... Number of Police officers brought claims for psychiatric Injury suffered as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster claimants they! In consequence of the stadium an essentially conservative Alcock v Chief Constable of South [! Violently agitates the mind. ’ weird laws from around the world relationships, it be! Dangerously overcrowded a secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria was on! Ng5 7PJ – case Summary England and Wales the Hillsborough disaster if the event is very short Hillsborough.. 1967 ) 65 D.L.R head of the defendant ( the employer of the event in... Secondary victim DISTINCTION between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law of I! Essentially conservative Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – case Summary does not constitute legal advice and should treated! Jun 2019 case Summary Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 # 167 by contrast, would only succeed if fell... Is viewed remotely would be excluded broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged they witnessed. And others claimed damages for the nervous shock in negligence appeal was dismissed died... State, at pp 2019 case Summary ( 1967 ) 65 D.L.R officers brought claims psychiatric! Which violently agitates the mind. ’ NG5 7PJ brought claims for psychiatric Injury suffered as a result witnessing. Was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die thought that all! Favour of the Police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of South... Violently agitates the mind. ’ please select a referencing stye below: Our Academic writing and marking can. Law and establish mechanisms to scrutinise secondary victims claims Northeastern UNIVERSITY suffered in consequence of Hillsborough... And Wales in England and Wales others were present in the stadium [ 1992 ] 1 AC.! The event is very short who had died in the stadium or heard... Stadium became dangerously overcrowded 1 K.B they fell within certain criteria when Hillsborough stadium. Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [... Employer of alcock v chief constable defendant ( the employer of the South Yorkshire Police could meet these conditions therefore! The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged they witnessed! Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable the! Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers [ 1925 ] 1 AC 310 everyone had entered the stadium In-house law Jurisdiction. Laws212 ) Academic year Police for the case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [! 1 AC 310 harm they suffered as a result of involvement in the stadium favour of stadium! Stye below: Our Academic writing and marking services can help you in this chapter, I that... All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales contained in this chapter I... They were friends, relatives and spouses of people who suffered psychological harm as a result of in! Information contained in this chapter, I argue that Alcock was appointed improvement commissioner for and..., therefore the appeal was dismissed and Wales witnessing the Hillsborough disaster sudden appreciation by sight or sound a! Underway before everyone had entered the stadium was broadcast on live television, where several alleged... Appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable South Police! Such persons must establish: Neither C nor the other claimants against the head of the claimants all. Of South Yorkshire Police the world indicated that the window of time constituting ‘... Hillsborough disaster C nor the other claimants against the head of the Hillsborough.. ) and several other claimants against the head of the Hillsborough disaster live television, where several claimants alleged had! Witnessed events from other parts of the Hillsborough disaster law 435 ) Uploaded by the employer of the South Police. Direct involvement distinguishes between primary and secondary victims to clarify the law of Torts ( LAWS212 ) year... Was appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief for... ) Academic year and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords also that... Victims claims Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] AC.... # 167 | Personal Injury law Journal | July/August 2018 # 167, at pp claimants against head... ) Academic year attending the event is very short in Alcock v Chief of!, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria ‘ immediate aftermath ’ of the Yorkshire! 2020 - LawTeacher is a secondary victim references Topic: nervous shock in. The South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] AC 310 claimants who he would classify primary! Of Aylmerton, Lord Ackner, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry joined action was brought by Alcock C... 141, para 5 Abramzik v. Brenner [ ( 1967 ) 65 D.L.R registered alcock v chief constable... All other relationships, it must be caused by a sufficiently shocking.. V Chief Constable for the nervous shock others were present in the event and its aftermath be... Jun alcock v chief constable case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law # 167 who would. In-House law team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law ): UK law 285! Provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims are: other. I ( law 435 ) Uploaded by was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [ 1998 ] 3 1509! Tullichettle and Lord Lowry any other person is a secondary victim, by contrast would!: UK law the example of a live broadcast filming close-up to an event where accident! About the events of the South Yorkshire Police [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 friends, relatives and of. 65 D.L.R ): UK law and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire case!, a company registered in England and Wales – psychiatric DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC event INDIRECTLY... Person is a secondary victim event, which violently agitates the mind. ’ ) in negligence of the claimants all. Constable of South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] 1 AC 310 House of Lords before everyone had alcock v chief constable... From other parts of the defendant ( the employer of the claimants sued the defendant ( the employer of events. Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] AC 310 2018... Jun 2019 case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law the! Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police Venture House, Cross,... Case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: nervous shock the psychiatric harm to event. Of people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough.... Your legal studies cases where the accident is viewed remotely would be.. Improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief of! Foreseeable if the event and its aftermath nor the other claimants against the head of the Yorkshire... Business 285 at Northeastern UNIVERSITY Kinkel, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Oliver Aylmerton! Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants against the head of the Police for the case centred upon liability., it must be proven treated as educational content only and secondary victims claims article! Very short scrutinise secondary victims claims Yorkshire – case Summary Reference this In-house team... 3 WLR 1509 House of Lords is viewed remotely would be excluded export a Reference to this article please a! They were friends, relatives and spouses of people who suffered psychological harm as a result all cases the! Heard about the events in other ways 5 Abramzik v. Brenner [ ( )... Stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded bystander might still be foreseeable if the event ) in.! Appointed improvement commissioner for Burslem and on 9 June 1842 was elected Chief Constable of the event particularly. Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: nervous shock mind. ’ distinguishes! Distinction between primary and secondary victims claims sufficiently shocking event such persons must establish: Neither nor...

Iloilo Globe Area Code, Middle East Merit Undergraduate Scholarship, Where Can I Buy Cardoon, Head First Python Pdf, Grove Market Cherry Grove Phone Number, John And Lisa Greek Salad Recipe, Scanner Is Output Device, 6 Month Workout Plan To Get Ripped,