alcock v chief constable

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

Victoria Falls Coronavirus, Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award Sample Letter Of Recommendation, Erwin Apartments - Durham, Splendor Pro Bike Petrol Tank Price, Jobs That Pay 300k A Year Uk, 8" Chinese Santoku Cleaver/slicer With Rosewood Handle, Volcanoes Meaning In Urdu And English, Silver Lace Vine,