Alcock V Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1991) UKHL 5 (28 November 1991)

10/10/2016 AlcockvChiefConstableofSouthYorkshire[1991]UKHL5(28November1991)
[Home][Databases][WorldLaw][MultidatabaseSearch][Help][Feedback]
UnitedKingdomHouseofLordsDecisions
Youarehere:BAILII>>Databases>>UnitedKingdomHouseofLordsDecisions>>AlcockvChiefConstableofSouth
Yorkshire[1991]UKHL5(28November1991)
URL:http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/5.html
Citeas:[1991]UKHL5,[1992]1AC310,[1991]4AllER907,[1992]AC310
[Newsearch][BuyICLRreport:[1992]1AC310][Help]
JISCBAILII_CASE_TORT
ParliamentaryArchives,
HL/PO/JU/18/251
Copocandothers(Appellants)v.Wright(suedasChief
ConstableoftheSouthYorkshirePolice(Respondent)
Alcockandothers(Appellants)v.Wright(suedasChief
ConstableoftheSouthYorkshirePolice)(Respondent)
(ConsolidatedAppeals)
JUDGMENT
DieJovis28Novembris1991
UponReportfromtheAppellateCommitteetowhomwas
referredtheCauseAlcockandothersagainstWright(suedas
ChiefConstableoftheSouthYorkshirePolice)andCopocand
othersagainstWright(suedasChiefConstableoftheSouth
YorkshirePolice),ThattheCommitteehadheardCounselas
wellonMondaythe7thasonTuesdaythe8th,Wednesdaythe
9th,Thursdaythe10thandMondaythe14thdaysofOctober
lastuponthePetitionsandAppealsofRobertAlcock,of5,
HayesDrive,Melling,MerseysideCatherineMareaJones,of
9,EmpressClose,GreenPark,Maghull,MerseysideJoseph
Kehoe,of48,BlackhorseLane,LiverpoolandAlexandraPenk,
of58CarrLane,WestDerby,LiverpoolandofAgnesand
HaroldCopoc,of4,GreenleighRoad,MossleyHill,Allerton,
LiverpoolBrianHarrison,of42,KilnCroft,Brookvale,
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/5.html 1/26
Runcorn,CheshireBrendaJulieHennessey,of85,Stonedale
Crescent,LiverpoolDeniseHough,of97,BarkRoad,
Litherland,LiverpoolandStephenJones,of53,Ashgrove,
Bradford,SouthYorkshireprayingthatthematterofthe
OrderssetforthintheSchedulethereto,namelyOrdersofHer
Majesty'sCourtofAppealofthe3rddayofMay1991,mightbe
reviewedbeforeHerMajestytheQueeninHerCourtof
ParliamentandthatthesaidOrdersmightbereversed,varied
oralteredorthatthePetitionersmighthavesuchother
reliefinthepremisesastoHerMajestytheQueeninHer
CourtofParliamentmightseemmeetasuponthecaseofPeter
WrightlodgedinanswertothesaidAppealswhichsaid
AppealswerebyanOrderofthisHouseofthe1stdayofJuly
1991Consolidatedanddueconsiderationhadthisdayofwhat
wasofferedoneithersideinthisCause:
ItisOrderedandAdjudged,bytheLordsSpiritualand
TemporalintheCourtofParliamentofHerMajestytheQueen
assembled,ThatthesaidOrdersofHerMajesty'sCourtof
Appealofthe3rddayofMay1991complainedofinthesaid
Appealsbe,andthesamearehereby,Affirmed,exceptinsofar
astheyrelatetocostsawardedagainstthoseplaintiffswho
werelegallyaidedinthatCourtandwhoappealedtothis
HouseandthatthesaidPetitionsandAppealsbe,andthe
samearehereby,dismissedthisHouse:Anditisfurther
Ordered,ThatthecostsoftherespondentinthisHouse,and
hiscostsintheCourtofAppealsofarasthereawarded
againstthoseplaintiffswhowerelegallyaidedinthatCourt
andwhoappealedtothisHouse,bepaidoutoftheLegalAid
Fund,suchordertobesuspendedforfourweekstoallowthe
LegalAidBoardtoobjectiftheywish:Anditisalso
furtherOrdered,Thatthecostsoftheappellantsbetaxedin
accordancewiththeLegalAidAct1988.
Cler:Parliamentor:
Judgment:28November1991
HOUSEOFLORDS
COPOC(A.P.)ANDOTHERS(A.P.)
(APPELLANTS)
v.
WRIGHT
(SUEDASCHIEFCONSTABLEOFTHESOUTHYORKSHIRE
POLICE)
(RESPONDENT)
and
ALCOCK(A.P.)ANDOTHERS(A.P.)
(APPELLANTS)
v.
WRIGHT
(SUEDASCHIEFCONSTABLEOFTHESOUTHYORKSHIRE
POLICE)
(RESPONDENT)
(CONSOLIDATEDAPPEALS)
LordKeithofKinkel
LordAckner
LordOliverofAylmerton
LordJaunceyofTullichettle
LordLowry
LORDKEITHOFKINKEL
MyLords,thelitigationwithwhichtheseappealsareconcernedaroseoutofthedisasteratHillsborough
Stadium,Sheffield,whichoccurredon15April1989.Onthatdayafootballmatchwasarrangedtobe
playedatthestadiumbetweentheLiverpoolandtheNottinghamForestfootballclubs.Itwasasemifinal
oftheF.A.Cup.TheSouthYorkshirepoliceforce,whichwasresponsibleforcrowdcontrolatthematch,
allowedanexcessivelylargenumberofintendingspectatorstoenterthegroundattheLeppingsLaneend,
anareareservedforLiverpoolsupporters.Theycrammedintopens3and4,belowtheWestStand,andin
theresultingcrush95peoplewerekilledandover400physicallyinjured.Scenesfromthegroundwere
broadcastliveontelevisionfromtimetotimeduringthecourseofthedisaster,andrecordingswere
broadcastlater.TheChiefConstableofSouthYorkshirehasadmittedliabilityinnegligenceinrespectof
thedeathsandphysicalinjuries.Sixteenseparateactionswerebroughtagainsthimbypersonsnoneof
whomwaspresentintheareawherethedisasteroccurred,althoughfourofthemwereelsewhereinthe
ground.Allofthemwereconnectedinvariouswayswithpersonswhowereinthatarea,beingrelatedto
suchpersonsor,inonecase,beingafiance.Inmostcasesthepersonwithwhomtheplaintiffwas
concernedwaskilled,inothercasesthatpersonwasinjured,andinonecaseturnedouttobeuninjured.
Alltheplaintiffsclaimeddamagesfornervousshockresultinginpsychiatricillnesswhichtheyalleged
wascausedbytheexperiencesinflictedonthembythedisaster.
TheactionscameonfortrialbeforeHiddenJ.on19June1990,andhegavejudgmenton31July1990,
ante,pp.314Eetseq.Thatjudgmentwasconcernedwiththequestionwhetherthedefendantowedaduty
ofcareinrelationtonervousshocktoany,andifsotowhich,oftheplaintiffs.Thedefendantadmitted
thatifheowedsuchadutytoanyplaintiff,andifthatplaintiffcouldshowcausation,thenthedefendant
wasinbreachofdutyandliableindamagestothatplaintiff.ForpurposesofhisjudgmentHiddenJ.
assumedinthecaseofeachplaintiffthatcausationwasestablished,leavingthatmattertobedealtwith,if
necessary,infurtherproceedings.Intheresult,hefoundinfavouroftenoutofthesixteenplaintiffs
beforehimandagainstsixofthem.ThedefendantappealedtotheCourtofAppealinthecasesofnineout
ofthetensuccessfulplaintiffs,andthesixunsuccessfulplaintiffsalsoappealedtothatcourt.On3May
1991theCourtofAppeal(Parker,StockerandNolanL.JJ.)gavejudgmentallowingthedefendant's
appealsinthecasesofthenineformerlysuccessfulplaintiffsandrejectingtheappealsofthesix
unsuccessfulones.TenonlyofthesefifteenplaintiffsnowappealtoyourLordships'House,withleave
grantedintheCourtofAppeal.
Thecircumstancesaffectingeachofthe10plaintiffswerethussummarisedinthejudgmentofParkerL.J.,
ante,pp.352354:
"one,BrianHarrison,wasattheground.HewasintheWestStand.Heknewbothofhis
brotherswouldbeinthepensbehindthegoal.Hesawthehorrifyingsceneasitdeveloped
andrealisedthatpeopleinthetwopenshadbeeneitherkilledorinjured.When,sixminutes
afterthestart,thematchwasabandonedhetriedtofindhisbrothers.Hefailedtodoso.He
stoppedupallnightwaitingfornews.At6a.m.helearntthathisfamilyweresettingofffor
Sheffield.At11a.m.hewasinformedbytelephonethatbothhisbrothersweredead....
"Mr.andMrs.Copoclosttheirson.Theysawthescenesonlivetelevision.Mrs.Copocwas
upallnight.Shewasinformedbypoliceofficersat6a.m.thathersonwasdead.Mr.Copoc
wenttoSheffieldat4a.m.withhisnephew.Hewasinformedat6.10a.m.ofhisson'sdeath
andlateridentifiedthebody....
"BrendaHennesseylostherbrother.Shewatchedtelevisionfromabout3.30p.m.and,
althoughshethenrealisedtherehadbeendeathsandinjuriesinthepens,shewasnotworried
becauseshebelievedherbrothertobeinastandseat.However,atabout5p.m.shelearnt
fromherbrother'swifethathehadaticketintheLeppingsLaneterrace.At6p.m.shelearnt
frommembersofthefamilywhohadgonetoSheffieldthatherbrotherwasdead.
"DeniseHoughlostherbrother.Shewas11yearsolderthanherbrotherandhadfosteredhim
forseveralyearsalthoughhenolongerlivedwithher.Sheknewhehadaticketatthe
LeppingsLaneendandwouldbebehindthegoal.Shewastoldbyafriendthattherewas
troubleatthegame.Shewatchedtelevision.At4.40a.m.shewasinformedbyhermother
thatherbrotherwasdead.Twodayslater,on17April,shewentwithhermothertoSheffield
andconfirmedanearlieridentificationofthebody.Hisfacewasbruisedandswollen.
"StephenJoneslosthisbrother.Heknewthathisbrotherwasatthematch.Hewatched
televisionandsawbodiesandbelievedthemtobedead.Hedidnotknowhisbrotherwas
deaduntil2.45a.m.when,havinggonetothetemporarymortuaryatHillsborough,hefound
hisparentsthereintears....
"RobertAlcocklosthisbrotherinlaw.HewasintheWestStand,withhisnephew,the
brotherinlaw'sson.HewitnessedthescenesfromtheWestStandandwassickenedbywhat
hesawbutwasnotthenconcernedforhisbrotherinlawwhomhebelievedtobeinthestand
because,onthewaytothematch,hehadswappedaterraceticketwhichheheldforastand
ticket.Tragically,however,thebrotherinlawhad,unknowntotheplaintiff,returnedtothe
terrace.Afterthematchtheplaintiffleftthegroundforarendezvouswiththebrotherinlaw
whodidnotarrive.Heandhisnephewbecameworriedandsearchedwithoutsuccess.At
aboutmidnighttheywenttothemortuarywheretheplaintiffidentifiedthebodywhichwas
bluewithbruisingandthechestofwhichwasred.Thesightappalledhim....
"CatherineJoneslostabrother.Sheknewhewasatthematchandwouldnormallybebehind
thegoal.At3.30p.m.whilstshoppingsheheardthattherewastroubleatthematchandat
4.30p.m.thatthereweredeaths.At5.15p.m.shewenthomeandheardontheradiothatthe
deathtollwasmounting.At7p.m.afriendtelephonedfromSheffieldtosaythatpeopleat
thehospitalweredescribingsomeonewhomightbeherbrother.At9p.m.herparentssetoff
forSheffield.At10p.m.shewatchedrecordedtelevisioninthehopeofseeingherbrother
alive.Shethought,mistakenly,shesawhimcollapsedonthepitch.At5a.m.herfather
returnedfromSheffieldandtoldherthatherbrotherwasdead.
"JosephKehoelosta14yearoldgrandson,thesonofhisdaughterandherdivorcedhusband.
Unknowntothegrandfathertheboyhadgonetothematchwithhisfather.Intheafternoon
theplaintiffheardontheradiothattherehadbeendeathsatHillsborough.Helatersawscenes
ofthedisasteronrecordedtelevision.Helaterstilllearntthathisgrandsonwasatthematch.
Hebecameworried.At3a.m.hewastelephonedbyanotherdaughtertosaythatboththeboy
andhisfatherweredead....
"AlexandraPenklostherfiance,CarlRimmer.Theyhadknowneachotherforfouryears
andrecentlybecameengaged.Theyplannedtomarryinlate1989oratthelatestearlyin
1990.SheknewhewasatthematchandwouldbeontheLeppingsLaneterraces.Shesaw
televisioninhersister'shouseandknewinstinctivelythatherfiancewasintrouble.She
continuedtowatchinthehopeofseeinghimbutdidnotdoso.Shewastoldatabout11p.m.
thathewasdead."
Thequestionofliabilityinnegligenceforwhatiscommonly,ifinaccurately,describedas"nervousshock"
hasonlytwicebeenconsideredbythisHouse,inBourhillv.Young[1943]AC92andinMcLoughlinv.
O'Brian[1983]1AC410.Inthelattercasetheplaintiff,afterlearningofamotoraccidentinvolvingher
husbandandthreeofherchildrenabouttwohoursafterithadhappened,wenttothehospitalwherethey
hadbeentaken.Thereshewastoldthatoneofthechildrenhadbeenkilled,andsawherhusbandandthe
othertwoinadistressedconditionandbearingontheirpersonstheimmediateeffectsoftheaccident.She
claimedtohavesufferedpsychiatricillnessasaresultofherexperience,andatthetrialofheractionof
damagesagainstthoseresponsiblefortheaccidentthiswasassumedtobethefact.ThisHouse,reversing
theCourtofAppeal,heldthatshewasentitledtorecoverdamages.Theleadingspeechwasdeliveredby
LordWilberforce.Havingsetout,atpp.418and419,thepositionsofarreachedinthedecidedcaseson
nervousshock,heexpressedtheopinionthatforeseeabilitydidnotofitselfandautomaticallygiveriseto
adutyofcareownedtoapersonorclassofpersonsandthatconsiderationsofpolicyenteredintothe
conclusionthatsuchadutyexisted.HethenconsideredtheargumentsonpolicywhichhadledtheCourt
ofAppealtorejecttheplaintiff'sclaim,andconcluded,atp.421,thattheywerenotofgreatforce.He
continued,atpp.421423:
"But,thesediscountsaccepted,thereremains,inmyopinion,justbecause'shock'initsnature
iscapableofaffectingsowidearangeofpeople,arealneedforthelawtoplacesome
limitationupontheextentofadmissibleclaims.Itisnecessarytoconsiderthreeelements
inherentinanyclaim:theclassofpersonswhoseclaimsshouldberecognisedtheproximity
ofsuchpersonstotheaccidentandthemeansbywhichtheshockiscaused.Asregardsthe
classofpersons,thepossiblerangeisbetweentheclosestoffamilytiesofparentandchild,
orhusbandandwifeandtheordinarybystander.Existinglawrecognisestheclaimsofthe
first:itdeniesthatofthesecond,eitheronthebasisthatsuchpersonsmustbeassumedtobe
possessedoffortitudesufficienttoenablethemtoendurethecalamitiesofmodernlife,or
thatdefendantscannotbeexpectedtocompensatetheworldatlarge.Inmyopinion,these
positionsarejustifiable,andsincethepresentcasefallswithinthefirstclass,itisstrictly
unnecessarytosaymore.Ithink,however,thatitshouldfollowthatothercasesinvolvingless
closerelationshipsmustbeverycarefullyscrutinised.Icannotsaythattheyshouldneverbe
admitted.Thecloserthetie(notmerelyinrelationship,butincare)thegreatertheclaimfor
consideration.Theclaim,inanycase,hastobejudgedinthelightoftheotherfactors,such
asproximitytothesceneintimeandplace,andthenatureoftheaccident.
"Asregardsproximitytotheaccident,itisobviousthatthismustbecloseinbothtimeand
space.Itis,afterall,thefactandconsequenceofthedefendant'snegligencethatmustbe
provedtohavecausedthe'nervousshock.'Experiencehasshownthattoinsistondirectand
immediatesightorhearingwouldbeimpracticalandunjustandthatunderwhatmaybe
calledthe'aftermath'doctrineonewho,fromcloseproximity,comesverysoonuponthe
sceneshouldnotbeexcluded....
"Finally,andbywayofreinforcementof'aftermath'cases,Iwouldaccept,byanalogywith
'rescue'situations,thatapersonofwhomitcouldbesaidthatonecouldexpectnothingelse
thanthatheorshewouldcomeimmediatelytothescenenormallyaparentoraspouse
couldberegardedasbeingwithinthescopeofforesightandduty.Wherethereisnot
immediatepresence,accountmustbetakenofthepossibilityofalterationsinthe
circumstances,forwhichthedefendantshouldnotberesponsible.
"Subjectonlytothesequalifications,Ithinkthatastricttestofproximitybysightorhearing
shouldbeappliedbythecourts.
"Lastly,asregardscommunication,thereisnocaseinwhichthelawhascompensatedshock
broughtaboutbycommunicationbyathirdparty.InHambrookv.StokesBrothers[1925]1
K.B.141,indeed,itwassaidthatliabilitywouldnotariseinsuchacaseandthisissurely
right.ItwassodecidedinAbramzikv.Brenner(1967)65D.L.R.(2d)651.Theshockmust
comethroughsightorhearingoftheeventorofitsimmediateaftermath.Whethersome
equivalentofsightorhearing,e.g.throughsimultaneoustelevision,wouldsufficemayhave
tobeconsidered."
LordBridgeofHarwich,withwhomLordScarmanagreed,atp.431DE,appearstohaverestedhis
findingofliabilitysimplyonthetestofreasonableforeseeabilityofpsychiatricillnessaffectingthe
plaintiffasaresultoftheconsequencesoftheroadaccident,atpp.439443.LordEdmundDaviesand
LordRussellofKillowenbothconsideredthepolicyargumentswhichhadledtheCourtofAppealto
dismisstheplaintiff'sclaimtobeunsound:pp.428,429.Neitherspeechcontainedanythinginconsistent
withthatofLordWilberforce.
Itwasarguedfortheplaintiffsinthepresentcasethatreasonableforeseeabilityoftheriskofinjuryto
themintheparticularformofpsychiatricillnesswasallthatwasrequiredtobringhomeliabilitytothe
defendant.Intheordinarycaseofdirectphysicalinjurysufferedinanaccidentatworkorelsewhere,
reasonableforeseeabilityoftheriskisindeedtheonlytestthatneedbeappliedtodetermineliability.But
injurybypsychiatricillnessismoresubtle,asLordMacmillanobservedinBourhillv.Young[1943]AC
92,103.Inthepresenttypeofcaseitisasecondarysortofinjurybroughtaboutbytheinflictionof
physicalinjury,ortheriskofphysicalinjury,uponanotherperson.Thatcanaffectthosecloselyconnected
withthatpersoninvariousways.Onewayisbysubjectingacloserelativetothestressandstrainof
caringfortheinjuredpersonoveraprolongedperiod,butpsychiatricillnessduetosuchstressandstrain
hasnotsofarbeentreatedasfoundingaclaimindamages.SoIamoftheopinionthatinadditionto
reasonableforeseeabilityliabilityforinjuryintheparticularformofpsychiatricillnessmustdependin
additionuponarequisiterelationshipofproximitybetweentheclaimantandthepartysaidtoowethe
duty.LordAtkininDonoghuev.Stevenson[1932]AC562,580describedthosetowhomadutyofcareis
owedasbeing:
"personswhoaresocloselyanddirectlyaffectedbymyactthatIoughtreasonablytohave
themincontemplationasbeingsoaffectedwhenIamdirectingmymindtotheactsor
omissionswhicharecalledinquestion."
Theconceptofapersonbeingcloselyanddirectlyaffectedhasbeenconvenientlylabelled"proximity,"
andthisconcepthasbeenappliedincertaincategoriesofcases,particularlythoseconcernedwithpure
economicloss,tolimitandcontroltheconsequencesasregardsliabilitywhichwouldfollowifreasonable
foreseeabilitywerethesolecriterion.
Asregardstheclassofpersonstowhomadutymaybeowedtotakereasonablecaretoavoidinflicting
psychiatricillnessthroughnervousshocksustainedbyreasonofphysicalinjuryorperiltoanother,Ithink
itsufficientthatreasonableforeseeabilityshouldbetheguide.Iwouldnotseektolimittheclassby
referencetoparticularrelationshipssuchashusbandandwifeorparentandchild.Thekindsofrelationshp
whichmayinvolveclosetiesofloveandaffectionarenumerous,anditistheexistenceofsuchtieswhich
leadstomentaldisturbancewhenthelovedonesuffersacatastrophe.Theymaybepresentinfamily
relationshipsorthoseofclosefriendship,andmaybestrongerinthecaseofengagedcouplesthaninthat
ofpersonswhohavebeenmarriedtoeachotherformanyyears.Itiscommonknowledgethatsuchties
exist,andreasonablyforeseeablethatthoseboundbythemmayincertaincircumstancesbeatrealriskof
pyschiatricillnessifthelovedoneisinjuredorputinperil.Theclosenessofthetiewould,however,
requiretobeprovedbyaplaintiff,thoughnodoubtbeingcapableofbeingpresumedinappropriatecases.
Thecaseofabystanderunconnectedwiththevictimsofanaccidentisdifficult.Psychiatricinjurytohim
wouldnotordinarily,inmyview,bewithintherangeofreasonableforeseeability,butcouldnotperhaps
beentirelyexcludedfromitifthecircumstancesofacatastropheoccurringveryclosetohimwere
particularlyhorrific.
Inthecaseofthosewithinthesphereofreasonableforeseeabilitytheproximityfactorsmentionedby
LordWilberforceinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410,422,must,however,betakenintoaccount
injudgingwhetheradutyofcareexists.Thefirstoftheseisproximityoftheplaintifftotheaccidentin
timeandspace.Forthispurposetheaccidentistobetakentoincludeitsimmediateaftermath,whichin
McLoughlin'scasewasheldtocoverthesceneatthehospitalwhichwasexperiencedbytheplaintiff
sometwohoursaftertheaccident.InJaenschv.Coffey(1984)155C.L.R.549,theplaintiffsawher
injuredhusbandatthehospitaltowhichhehadbeentakeninseverepainbeforeandbetweenhis
undergoingaseriesofemergencyoperations,andthenextdaystayedwithhimintheintensivecareunit
andthoughthewasgoingtodie.Shewasheldentitledtorecoverdamagesforthepsychiatricillnessshe
sufferedasaresult.DeaneJ.said,atp.608:
"theaftermathoftheaccidentextendedtothehospitaltowhichtheinjuredpersonwastaken
andpersistedforsolongasheremainedinthestateproducedbytheaccidentuptoand
includingimmediatepostaccidenttreatment....Herpsychiatricinjuriesweretheresultofthe
impactuponherofthefactsoftheaccidentitselfanditsaftermathwhileshewaspresentat
theaftermathoftheaccidentatthehospital."
Asregardsthemeansbywhichtheshockissuffered,LordWilberforcesaidinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian
[1983]1AC410,423thatitmustcomethroughsightorhearingoftheeventonorofitsimmediate
aftermath.Healsosaidthatitwassurelyrightthatthelawshouldnotcompensateshockbroughtaboutby
communicationbyathirdparty.OnthatbasisitisopentoseriousdoubtwhetherHevicanv.Ruane[1991]
3AllE.R.65andRavenscroftv.RederiaktieblagetTransatlantic[1991]3AllE.R.73werecorrectly
decided,sinceinbothofthesecasestheeffectivecauseofthepsychiatricillnesswouldappeartohave
beenthefactofason'sdeathandthenewsofit.
Ofthepresentplaintiffstwo,BrianHarrisonandRobertAlcock,werepresentattheHillsboroughground,
bothofthemintheWestStand,fromwhichtheywitnessedthescenesinpens3and4.BrianHarrisonlost
twobrothers,whileRobertAlcocklostabrotherinlawandidentifiedthebodyatthemortuaryat
midnight.Inneitherofthesecaseswasthereanyevidenceofparticularlyclosetiesofloveoraffection
withthebrothersorbrotherinlaw.Inmyopinionthemerefactoftheparticularrelationshipwas
insufficienttoplacetheplaintiffwithintheclassofpersonstowhomadutyofcarecouldbeowedbythe
defendantasbeingforeseeablyatriskofpsychiatricillnessbyreasonofinjuryorperiltotheindividuals
concerned.Thesameistrueofotherplaintiffswhowerenotpresentatthegroundandwholostbrothers,
orinonecaseagrandson.Iwould,however,placeinthecategorytomembersofwhichriskofpsychiatric
illnesswasreasonablyforeseeableMr.andMrs.Copoc,whosesonwaskilled,andAlexandraPenk,who
lostherfiance.Ineachofthesecasestheclosesttiesofloveandaffectionfalltobepresumedfromthe
factoftheparticularrelationship,andthereisnosuggestionofanythingwhichmighttendtorebutthat
presumption.ThesethreeallwatchedscenesfromHillsboroughontelevision,butnoneofthesedepicted
sufferingofrecognisableindividuals,suchbeingexcludedbythebroadcastingcodeofethics,aposition
knowntothedefendant.Inmyopiniontheviewingofthesescenescannotbeequiparatedwiththeviewer
beingwithin"sightorhearingoftheeventorofitsimmediateaftermath,"tousethewordsofLord
Wilberforce[1983]1AC410,423B,norcanthescenesreasonablyberegardedasgivingrisetoshock,in
thesenseofasuddenassaultonthenervoussystem.Theywerecapableofgivingrisetoanxietyforthe
safetyofrelativesknownorbelievedtobepresentintheareaaffectedbythecrush,andundoubtedlydid
so,butthatisverydifferentfromseeingthefateoftherelativeorhisconditionshortlyaftertheevent.The
viewingofthetelevisionscenesdidnotcreatethenecessarydegreeofproximity.
MyLords,forthesereasonsIwoulddismisseachoftheseappeals.
LORDACKNER
MyLords,ifsympathyaloneweretobethedeterminingfactorintheseclaims,thentheywouldnever
havebeencontested.IthasbeenstressedthroughoutthejudgmentsinthecourtsbelowandIwould
emphasiseityetagaininyourLordships'Housethatthehumantragedywhichoccurredontheafternoon
of15April1989attheHillsboroughStadiumwhen95peoplewerekilledandmorethan400others
receivedinjuriesfrombeingcrushednecessitatinghospitaltreatment,remainsanutterlyappallingone.
Itis,however,tritelawthatthedefendant,theChiefConstableofSouthYorkshire,isnotaninsurer
againstpsychiatricillnessoccasionedbytheshocksustainedbytherelativesorfriendsofthosewhodied
orwereinjured,orwerebelievedtohavediedortohavebeeninjured.Thisis,ofcourse,fullyrecognised
bytheappellants,theplaintiffsintheseactions,whoseclaimsfordamagestocompensatethemfortheir
psychiatricillnessesarebasedupontheallegationthatitwasthedefendant'snegligence,thatistosayhis
breachofhisdutyofcareowedtothemaswellastothosewhodiedorwereinjuredincontrollingthe
crowdsatthestadium,whichcausedthemtosuffertheirillnesses.Thedefendant,forthepurposesof
theseactions,hasadmittedthatheowedadutyofcareonlytothosewhodiedorwereinjuredandthathe
wasinbreachofonlythatduty.Hehasfurtheracceptedthateachoftheplaintiffshassufferedsome
psychiatricillness.Moreoverforthepurposeofdecidingwhetherthedefendantisliabletopaydamages
totheplaintiffsinrespectoftheirillnesses,thetrialjudge,HiddenJ.,madetheassumptionthatthe
illnesseswerecausedbytheshockssustainedbytheplaintiffsbyreasonoftheirawarenessoftheevents
atHillsborough.Thedefendanthasthroughoutcontestedliabilityonthegroundthat,inallthe
circumstances,hewasnotinbreachofanydutyofcareowedtothetheplaintiffs.
SincethedecisionofyourLordships'HouseinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410,ifnotearlier,it
isestablishedlawthat(1)aclaimfordamagesforpsychiatricillnessresultingfromshockcausedby
negligencecanbemadewithoutthenecessityoftheplaintiffestablishingthathewashimselfinjuredor
wasinfearofpersonalinjury(2)aclaimfordamagesforsuchillnesscanbemadewhentheshock
results:(a)fromdeathorinjurytotheplaintiff'sspouseorchildorthefearofsuchdeathorinjuryand(b)
theshockhascomeaboutthroughthesightorhearingoftheevent,oritsimmediateaftermath.
Tosucceedinthepresentappealstheplaintiffsseektoextendtheboundariesofthiscauseofactionby:
(1)removinganyrestrictionsonthecategoriesofpersonswhomaysue(2)extendingthemeansbywhich
theshockiscaused,sothatitincludesviewingthesimultaneousbroadcastontelevisionoftheincident
whichcausedtheshock(3)modifyingthepresentrequirementthattheaftermathmustbe"immediate."
Arecitalofthecasesoverthelastcenturyshowthattheextentoftheliabilityforshockinduced
psychiatricillnesshasbeengreatlyexpanded.Thishaslargelybeenduetoabetterunderstandingof
mentalillnessanditsrelationtoshock.Theextensionofthescopeofthiscauseofactionsoughtinthese
appealsisnotonanysuchgroundbut,soitiscontended,bytheapplicationofestablishedlegalprinciples.
Mr.HytnerfortheplaintiffsreliessubstantiallyuponthespeechofLordBridgeofHarwichin
McLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410,431,andonthejudgmentofBrennanJ.intheAustralianHigh
CourtdecisionJaenschv.Coffey,(1984)155C.L.R.549,558,forthepropositionthatthetestfor
establishingliabilityistheunfetteredapplicationofthetestofreasonableforeseeabilityviz.whetherthe
hypotheticalreasonablemaninthepositionofthedefendant,viewingthepositionexpostfacto,would
saythattheshockinducedpsychiatricillnesswasreasonablyforeseeable.Mr.Woodwardforthe
defendantreliesupontheopinionexpressedbyLordWilberforcesupportedbyLordEdmundDaviesin
McLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410,420F,thatforeseeabilitydoesnotofitself,andautomatically,
leadtoadutyofcare:
"foreseeabilitymustbeaccompaniedandlimitedbythelaw'sjudgmentastopersonswho
ought,accordingtoitsstandardsofvalueorjustice,tohavebeenincontemplation."
HealsoreliesonsimilarviewsexpressedbyGibbsC.J.andDeaneJ.inJaenschv.Coffey,(1984)155
C.L.R.549,552,578.
Thenatureofthecauseofaction
InBourhillv.Young[1943]AC92,103,LordMacmillansaid:
"inthecaseofmentalshockthereareelementsofgreatersubtletythaninthecaseofan
ordinaryphysicalinjuryandtheseelementsmaygiverisetodebateastotheprecisescopeof
thelegalliability."
Itisnowgenerallyacceptedthatananalysisofthereportedcasesofnervousshockestablishesthatitisa
typeofclaiminacategoryofitsown.Shockisnolongeravariantofphysicalinjurybutaseparatekind
ofdamage.Whatevermaybethepatternofthefuturedevelopmentofthelawinrelationtothiscauseof
action,thefollowingpropositionsillustratethattheapplicationsimpliciterofthereasonableforeseeability
testis,today,farfrombeingoperative.
(1)Eventhoughtheriskofpsychiatricillnessisreasonablyforeseeable,thelawgivesno
damagesifthepsychiatricinjurywasnotinducedbyshock.Psychiatricillnessescausedin
otherways,suchasbytheexperienceofhavingtocopewiththedeprivationconsequentupon
thedeathofalovedone,attractsnodamages.BrennanJ.inJaenschv.Coffey,(1984)155
C.L.R.549,569,gaveasexamples,thespousewhohasbeenworndownbycaringfora
tortiouslyinjuredhusbandorwifeandwhosufferspsychiatricillnessasaresult,butwho,
nevertheless,goeswithoutcompensationaparentmadedistraughtbythewaywardconduct
ofabraindamagedchildandwhosufferspsychiatricillnessasaresultalsohasnoclaim
againstthetortfeasorliabletothechild.
(2)Evenwherethenervousshockandthesubsequentpsychiatricillnesscausedbyitcould
bothhavebeenreasonablyforeseen,ithasbeengenerallyacceptedthatdamagesformerely
beinginformedof,orreading,orhearingabouttheaccidentarenotrecoverable.InBourhillv.
Young[1943]AC92,103,LordMacmillanonlyrecognisedtheactionlyingwheretheinjury
byshockwassustained"throughthemediumoftheeyeortheearwithoutdirectcontact."
CertainlyBrennanJ.inhisjudgmentinJaenschv.Coffey,(1984)155C.L.R.549,567,
recognised:
"Apsychiatricillnessinducedbymereknowledgeofadistressingfactisnot
compensableperceptionbytheplaintiffofthedistressingphenomenonis
essential."
ThatseemsalsotohavebeentheviewofBankesL.J.inHambrookv.StokesBrothers[1925]
1K.B.141,152.Iagreewithmynobleandlearnedfriend,LordKeithofKinkel,thatthe
validityofeachoftherecentdecisionsatfirstinstanceofHevicanv.Ruane[1991]3AllE.R.
65andRavenscroftv.RederiaktieblagetTransatlantic[1991]3AllE.R.73isopentoserious
doubt.
(3)Merementalsuffering,althoughreasonablyforeseeable,ifunaccompaniedbyphysical
injury,isnotabasisforaclaimfordamages.Tofillthisgapinthelawaverylimited
categoryofrelativesaregivenastatutoryrightbytheAdministrationofJusticeAct1982,
section3insertinganewsection1AintotheFatalAccidentsAct1976,tobringanaction
claimingdamagesforbereavement.
(4)Asyetthereisnoauthorityestablishingthatthereisliabilityonthepartoftheinjured
person,hisorherestate,formerepsychiatricinjurywhichwassustainedbyanotherby
reasonofshock,asaresultofaselfinflicteddeath,injuryorperilofthenegligentperson,in
circumstanceswheretheriskofsuchpsychiatricinjurywasreasonablyforeseeable.Onthe
basisthattheremustbealimitatsomereasonablepointtotheextentofthedutyofcareowed
tothirdpartieswhichrestsuponeveryoneinallhisactions,LordRobertson,theLord
Ordinary,inhisjudgmentintheBourhillcase,1941S.C.395,399,didnotviewwithfavour
thesuggestionthatanegligentwindowcleanerwholoseshisgripandfallsfromaheight,
impalinghimselfonspikedrailings,wouldbeliablefortheshockinducedpsychiatricillness
occasionedtoapregnantwomanlookingoutofthewindowofahousesituatedonthe
oppositesideofthestreet.
(5)"Shock,"inthecontextofthiscauseofaction,involvesthesuddenappreciationbysight
orsoundofahorrifyingevent,whichviolentlyagitatesthemind.Ithasyettoinclude
psychiatricillnesscausedbytheaccumulationoveraperiodoftimeofmoregradualassaults
onthenervoussystem.
Idonotfinditsurprisingthatinthisparticularareaofthetortofnegligence,thereasonableforeseeability
testisnotgivenafreerein.AsLordReidsaidinMcKewv.Holland&Hannen&Cubitts(Scotland)Ltd.
[1969]3AllER1621,1623:
"Adefenderisnotliableforaconsequenceofakindwhichisnotforeseeable.Butitdoesnot
followthatheisliableforeveryconsequencewhichareasonablemancouldforesee."
DeaneJ.pertinentlyobservedinJaenschv.Coffey,(1984)155C.L.R.549,583:
"Reasonableforeseeabilityonitsownindicatesnomorethanthatsuchadutyofcarewill
existif,andtotheextentthat,itisnotprecludedormodifiedbysomeapplicableoverriding
requirementorlimitation.Itistodolittlemorethantostateatruismtosaythattheessential
functionofsuchrequirementsorlimitationsistoconfinetheexistenceofadutytotake
reasonablecaretoavoidreasonablyforeseeableinjurytothecircumstancesorclassesofcase
inwhichitisthepolicyofthelawtoadmitit.Suchoverridingrequirementsorlimitations
shapethefrontiersofthecommonlawofnegligence."
Althoughitisavitalsteptowardstheestablishmentofliability,thesatisfactionofthetestofreasonable
foreseeabilitydoesnot,inmyjudgment,ipsofactosatisfyLordAtkin'swellknownneighbourhood
principleenuniciatedinDonoghuev.Stevenson[1932]AC562,580.Forhimtohavebeenreasonablyin
contemplationbyadefendanthemustbe:
"socloselyanddirectlyaffectedbymyactthatIoughtreasonablytohavethemin
contemplationasbeingsoaffectedwhenIamdirectingmymindtotheactsoromissions
whicharecalledinquestion."
Therequirementcontainedinthewords"socloselyanddirectlyaffected...that"constitutesacontrol
uponthetestofreasonableforeseeabilityofinjury.LordAtkinwasatpainstostress,atpp.580582,that
theformulationofadutyofcare,merelyinthegeneraltermsofreasonableforeseeability,wouldbetoo
wideunlessitwere"limitedbythenotionofproximity"whichwasembodiedintherestrictionoftheduty
ofcaretoone's"neighbour."
Thethreeelements
Because"shock"initsnatureiscapableofaffectingsuchawiderangeofpersons,LordWilberforcein
McLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410,422,concludedthattherewasarealneedforthelawtoplace
somelimitationupontheextentofadmissibleclaimsandinthiscontextheconsideredthattherewere
threeelementsinherentinanyclaim.Itiscommongroundthatsuchelementsdoexistandarerequiredto
beconsideredinconnectionwithalltheseclaims.Thefundamentaldifferenceinapproachisthaton
behalfoftheplaintiffsitiscontendedthattheconsiderationofthesethreeelementsismerelypartofthe
processofdecidingwhether,asamatteroffact,thereasonableforeseeabilitytesthasbeensatisfied.On
behalfofthedefendantitiscontendedthattheseelementsoperateasacontrolorlimitationonthemere
applicationofthereasonableforeseeabilitytest.Theyintroducetherequirementof"proximity"as
conditioningthedutyofcare.
Thethreeelementsare(1)theclassofpersonswhoseclaimsshouldberecognised(2)theproximityof
suchpersonstotheaccidentintimeandspace(3)themeansbywhichtheshockhasbeencaused.
Iwilldealwiththosethreeelementsseriatim.
(1)Theclassofpersonswhoseclaimshouldberecognised
Whendealingwiththepossiblerangeoftheclassofpersonswhomightsue,Lord
WilberforceinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410contrastedtheclosestoffamilyties
parentandchildandhusbandandwifewiththatoftheordinarybystander.Hesaidthat
whileexistinglawrecognisestheclaimsofthefirst,itdeniedthatofthesecond,eitheronthe
basisthatsuchpersonsmustbeassumedtobepossessedwithfortitudesufficienttoenable
themtoendurethecalamitiesofmodernlife,orthatdefendantscannotbeexpectedto
compensatetheworldatlarge.Heconsideredthatthesepositionswerejustified,thatother
casesinvolvinglesscloserelationshipsmustbeverycarefullyconsidered,adding,atp.422:
"Thecloserthetie(notmerelyinrelationship,butincare)thegreatertheclaim
forconsideration.Theclaim,inanycase,hastobejudgedinthelightofthe
otherfactors,suchasproximitytothesceneintimeandplace,andthenatureof
theaccident."
IrespectfullysharethedifficultyexpressedbyAtkinL.J.inHambrookv.StokesBrothers
[1925]1K.B.141,158159howdoyouexplainwhythedutyisconfinedtothecaseof
parentorguardianandchildanddoesnotextendtootherrelationsoflifealsoinvolving
intimateassociationsandwhydoesitnoteventuallyextendtobystanders?Asregardsthe
lattercategory,whileitmaybeverydifficulttoenvisageacaseofastranger,whoisnot
activelyandforeseeablyinvolvedinadisasteroritsaftermath,otherthanintheroleof
rescuer,sufferingshockinducedpsychiatricinjurybythemereobservationofapprehended
oractualinjuryofathirdpersonincircumstancesthatcouldbeconsideredreasonably
foreseeable,Iseenoreasoninprinciplewhyheshouldnot,ifinthecircumstances,a
reasonablystrongnervedpersonwouldhavebeensoshocked.Inthecourseofargumentyour
Lordshipsweregiven,bywayofanexample,thatofapetroltankercareeringoutofcontrol
intoaschoolinsessionandburstingintoflames.Iwouldnotbepreparedtoruleouta
potentialclaimbyapasserbysoshockedbythesceneastosufferpsychiatricillness.
AsregardsclaimsbythoseintheclosefamilyrelationshipsreferredtobyLordWilberforce,
thejustificationforadmittingsuchclaimsisthepresumption,whichIwouldacceptasbeing
rebuttable,thattheloveandaffectionnormallyassociatedwithpersonsinthoserelationships
issuchthatadefendantoughtreasonablytocontemplatethattheymaybesocloselyand
directlyaffectedbyhisconductastosuffershockresultinginpsychiatricillness.Whileasa
generalisationmoreremoterelativesand,afortiori,friends,canreasonablybeexpectednotto
sufferillnessfromtheshock,therecanwellberelativesandfriendswhoserelationshipisso
closeandintimatethattheirloveandaffectionforthevictimiscomparabletothatofthe
normalparent,spouseorchildofthevictimandshouldforthepurposeofthiscauseofaction
besotreated.ThiswastheopinionofStockerL.J.intheinstantappeal,ante,p.376EG,and
alsothatofNolanL.J.whothusexpressedhimself,ante,pp.384385:
"Formypart,Iwouldacceptatoncethatnogeneraldefinitionispossible.ButI
seenodifficultyinprincipleinrequiringadefendanttocontemplatethatthe
personphysicallyinjuredorthreatenedbyhisnegligencemayhaverelativesor
friendswhoseloveforhimislikethatofanormalparentorspouse,andwhoin
consequencemaysimilarlybecloselyanddirectlyaffectedbynervousshock...
Theidentificationoftheparticularindividualswhocomewithinthatcategory,
likethatoftheparentsandspousesthemselves,couldonlybecarriedoutexpost
facto,andwoulddependuponevidenceofthe'relationship'inthebroadsense
whichgaverisetotheloveandaffection."
Itisinterestingtoobservethatwhen,nearly50yearsago,theNewSouthWaleslegislature
decidedtoextendliabilityforinjuryarisingwhollyorinpartfrom"mentalornervousshock"
sustainedbyaparentorhusbandorwifeofthepersonkilled,injuredorputinperil,orany
othermemberofthefamilyofsuchperson,itrecognisedthatitwasappropriatetoextend
significantlythedefinitionofsuchcategoriesofclaimants.Section4(5)oftheLawReform
(MiscellaneousProvisions)Act1944provides:
"'Memberofthefamily'meansthehusband,wife,parent,child,brother,sister,
halfbrotherorhalfsisterofthepersoninrelationtowhomtheexpressionis
used.'Parent'includesfather,mother,grandfather,grandmother,stepfather,
stepmotherandanypersonstandinginlocoparentistoanother.'Child'includes
son,daughter,grandson,granddaughter,stepson,stepdaughterandanypersonto
whomanotherstandsinlocoparentis."
Whetherthedegreeofloveandaffectioninanygivenrelationship,beitthatofrelativeor
friend,issuchthatthedefendant,inthelightoftheplaintiff'sproximitytothesceneofthe
accidentintimeandspaceanditsnature,shouldreasonablyhaveforeseentheshockinduced
psychiatricillness,hastobedecidedonacasebycasebasis.AsDeaneJ.observedinJaensch
v.Coffey,(1984)155C.L.R.549,601:
"Whileitmustnowbeacceptedthatanyrealisticassessmentofthereasonably
foreseeableconsequencesofanaccidentinvolvingactualorthreatenedserious
bodilyinjurymust,inanappropriatecase,includethepossibilityofinjuryinthe
formofnervousshockbeingsustainedbyawiderangeofpersonsnotphysically
injuredintheaccident,theouterlimitsofreasonableforeseeabilityofmere
psychiatricinjurycannotbeidentifiedintheabstractorinadvance.Muchmay
dependuponthenatureofthenegligentactoromission,onthegravityor
apparentgravityofanyactualorapprehendedinjuryandonanyexpertevidence
aboutthenatureandexplanationoftheparticularpsychiatricinjurywhichthe
plaintiffhassustained."
(2)Theproximityoftheplaintifftotheaccident
Itisacceptedthattheproximitytotheaccidentmustbeclosebothintimeandspace.Direct
andimmediatesightorhearingoftheaccidentisnotrequired.Itisreasonablyforeseeable
thatinjurybyshockcanbecausedtoaplaintiff,notonlythroughthesightorhearingofthe
event,butofitsimmediateaftermath.
Onlytwooftheplaintiffsbeforeuswereattheground.However,itisclearfromMcLoughlin
v.O'Brian[1983]1AC410thattheremaybeliabilitywheresubsequentidentificationcanbe
regardedaspartofthe"immediateaftermath"oftheaccident.Mr.Alcockidentifiedhis
brotherinlawinabadconditioninthemortuaryataboutmidnight,thatissomeeighthours
aftertheaccident.Thiswastheearliestoftheidentificationcases.Evenifthisidentification
couldbedescribedaspartofthe"aftermath,"itcouldnotinmyjudgmentbedescribedaspart
oftheimmediateaftermath.McLoughlin'scasewasdescribedbyLordWilberforceasbeing
uponthemarginofwhattheprocessoflogicalprogressionfromcasetocasewouldallow.
Mrs.McLoughlinhadarrivedatthehospitalwithinanhourorsoaftertheaccident.
AccordinglyinthepostaccidentidentificationcasesbeforeyourLordshipstherewasnot
sufficientproximityintimeandspacetotheaccident.
(3)Themeansbywhichtheshockiscaused
LordWilberforceconcludedthattheshockmustcomethroughsightorhearingoftheevent
oritsimmediateaftermathbutspecificallyleftforlaterconsiderationwhethersome
equivalentofsightorhearing,e.g.throughsimultaneoustelevision,wouldsuffice:seep.423.
Ofcourseitiscommongroundthatitwasclearlyforeseeablebythedefendantthatthescenes
atHillsboroughwouldbebroadcastliveandthatamongstthosewhowouldbewatching
wouldbeparentsandspousesandotherrelativesandfriendsofthoseinthepensbehindthe
goalattheLeppingsLaneend.Howeverhewouldalsoknowofthecodeofethicswhichthe
televisionauthoritiestelevisingthiseventcouldbeexpectedtofollow,namelythatthey
wouldnotshowpicturesofsufferingbyrecognisableindividuals.Hadtheydoneso,Mr.
Hytneracceptedthatthiswouldhavebeena"novusactus"breakingthechainofcausation
betweenthedefendant'sallegedbreachofdutyandthepsychiatricillness.Asthedefendant
wasreasonablyentitledtoexpecttobethecase,therewerenosuchpictures.Althoughthe
televisionpicturescertainlygaverisetofeelingsofthedeepestanxietyanddistress,inthe
circumstancesofthiscasethesimultaneoustelevisionbroadcastsofwhatoccurredcannotbe
equatedwiththe"sightorhearingoftheeventoritsimmediateaftermath."Accordingly
shockssustainedbyreasonofthesebroadcastscannotfoundaclaim.Iagree,however,with
NolanL.J.thatsimultaneousbroadcastsofadisastercannotinallcasesberuledoutas
providingtheequivalentoftheactualsightorhearingoftheeventoritsimmediateaftermath.
NolanL.J.gave,ante,pp.386G387A,anexampleofasituationwhereitwasreasonableto
anticipatethatthetelevisioncameras,whilstfilmingandtransmittingpicturesofaspecial
eventofchildrentravellinginaballoon,inwhichtherewasmediainterest,particularly
amongsttheparents,showedtheballoonsuddenlyburstingintoflames.Manyothersuch
situationscouldbeimaginedwheretheimpactofthesimultaneoustelevisionpictureswould
beasgreat,ifnotgreater,thantheactualsightoftheaccident.
Conclusion
Onlyoneoftheplaintiffs,whosucceededbeforeHiddenJ.,namelyBrianHarrison,wasattheground.
Hisrelativeswhodiedwerehistwobrothers.Thequalityofbrotherlyloveiswellknowntodifferwidely
fromCainandAbeltoDavidandJonathan.IassumethatMr.Harrison'srelationshipwithhisbrothers
wasnotanabnormalone.Hisclaimwasnotpresenteduponthebasisthattherewassuchacloseand
intimaterelationshipbetweenthem,asgaverisetothatveryspecialbondofaffectionwhichwouldmake
hisshockinducedpsychiatricillnessreasonablyforeseeablebythedefendant.Accordingly,thejudgedid
notcarryouttherequisiteclosescrutinyoftheirrelationship.Thustherewasnoevidencetoestablishthe
necessaryproximitywhichwouldmakehisclaimreasonablyforeseeableand,subjecttotheotherfactors,
towhichIhavereferred,avalidone.Theotherplaintiffwhowaspresentattheground,RobertAlcock,
lostabrotherinlaw.Hewasnot,inmyjudgment,reasonablyforeseeableasapotentialsuffererfrom
shockinducedpsychiatricillness,indefaultofveryspecialfactsandnonewasestablished.Accordingly
theirclaimsmustfail,asmustthoseoftheotherplaintiffswhoonlylearnedofthedisasterbywatching
simultaneoustelevision.I,too,wouldthereforedismisstheseappeals.
LORDOLIVEROFAYLMERTON
MyLords,ineachoftheseappealsthequestionraisediswhetherthedefendantistobeheldresponsible
forpsychiatricinjurysufferedbyaplaintiffwhowasnothimselforherselfdirectlyinvolvedinthe
accident(forwhich,forpresentpurposes,thedefendantacceptsresponsibility)butwhowasconnectedto
avictimbythebondsofanaffectionaterelationshipsuchthatheorshesufferedextremeshockoranguish
leadingtotheconditionofwhichtheplaintiffcomplains.
Thetragiccircumstancesoutofwhichthepresentappealsarisehavealreadybeensetoutinthespeechof
mynobleandlearnedfriend,LordKeithofKinkel,andnopurposewouldbeservedbyrepeatingthem.In
eachcasedamagesaresoughtforpsychiatricillness,which,forpresentpurposes,mustbeassumedto
havebeencausedbythenervousimpactontheplaintiffofthedeathorinjuryofaprimaryvictimwith
whomheorshehadastrongbondofaffection.Ineachcaseitisadmittedforthepurposesofthese
proceedingsthatthedefendantwasinbreachofatortiousdutyofcareowedtotheprimaryvictimandthat
eachplaintiffhassufferedpsychiatricillness.Itisinissuewhethertheillnessofwhicheachplaintiff
complainsiscausallyattributabletothecircumstancesinwhichheorshebecameawareofthedeathof
theprimaryvictim.Butsuchacausallinkisassumedforthepurposesoftheseappeals.Whatremainsin
issueiswhetherthedefendantowedanydutyintorttotheplaintiffstoavoidcausingthetypeofinjuryof
whicheachplaintiffcomplains.Inessencethisinvolvesansweringthetwinquestionsof(a)whether
injuryofthissorttoeachparticularplaintiffwasareasonablyforeseeableconsequenceoftheactsor
omissionsconstitutingthebreachofdutytotheprimaryvictimand(b)whetherthereexistedbetweenthe
defendantandeachplaintiffthatdegreeofdirectnessorproximitynecessarytoestablishliability.
Thereis,tobeginwith,nothingunusualorpeculiarintherecognitionbythelawthatcompensatable
injurymaybecausedjustasmuchbyadirectassaultuponthemindorthenervoussystemasbydirect
physicalcontactwiththebody.Thisisnomorethanthenaturalandinevitableresultofthegrowing
appreciationbymodernmedicalscienceofrecognisablecausalconnectionsbetweenshocktothenervous
systemandphysicalorpsychiatricillness.Casesinwhichdamagesareclaimedfordirectlyinflicted
injuriesofthisnaturemaypresentgreaterdifficultiesofproofbuttheyarenot,intheiressentialelements,
anydifferentfromcaseswherethedamagesclaimedarisefromdirectphysicalinjuryandtheypresentno
verydifficultproblemsofanalysiswheretheplaintiffhashimselfbeendirectlyinvolvedintheaccident
fromwhichtheinjuryissaidtoarise.Insuchacasehecanbeproperlysaidtobetheprimaryvictimof
thedefendant'snegligenceandthefactthattheinjurywhichhesustainsisinflictedthroughthemediumof
anassaultonthenervesorsensesdoesnotservetodifferentiatethecase,exceptpossiblyinthedegreeof
evidentiarydifficulty,fromacaseofdirectphysicalinjury.
Itiscustomarytoclassifycasesinwhichdamagesareclaimedforinjuryoccasionedinthiswayundera
singlegenericlabelascasesof"liabilityfornervousshock."Thismaybeconvenientbutinfactthelabel
ismisleadingifandtotheextentthatitisassumedtoleadtoaconclusionthattheyhavemoreincommon
thanthefactualsimilarityofthemediumthroughwhichtheinjuryissustainedthatofanassaultuponthe
nervoussystemoftheplaintiffthroughwitnessingortakingpartinaneventandthattheywill,on
accountofthisfactor,provideasinglecommontestforthecircumstanceswhichgiverisetoadutyof
care.Broadlytheydivideintotwocategories,thatistosay,thosecasesinwhichtheinjuredplaintiffwas
involved,eithermediatelyorimmediately,asaparticipant,andthoseinwhichtheplaintiffwasnomore
thanthepassiveandunwillingwitnessofinjurycausedtoothers.Inthecontextoftheinstantappealsthe
casesoftheformertypearenotparticularlyhelpful,excepttotheextentthattheyyieldanumberof
illuminatingdicta,fortheyillustrateonlyadirectnessofrelationship(andthusaduty)whichisalmost
selfevidentfromamererecitalofthefacts.
Thus,Dulieuv.White&Sons[1901]2KB669wheretheplaintiffwasnaturallyandobviouslyputinfear
forherownsafetywhenarunawayvehiclebrokethroughthefrontofthepublichousewhereshewas
employed,is,atanyratetomoderneyes,atolerablyobviouscase.Hadshesustainedbodilyinjuryfrom
theincursiontherecouldneverhavebeentheslightestdoubtaboutthedefendant'sliabilityandthefact
thatwhatbroughtabouttheinjurywasnotanactualcontactbuttheimminentthreattoherpersonally
posedbythedefendant'snegligencecouldmakenodifferencetotheresult.Asthepersondirectly
threatened,shewasquiteclearlyinasufficientlydirectandproximaterelationshipwithhim.The
principalinterestofthecaseliesintheviewexpressedbyKennedyJ.,apparentlyfollowinganearlier,
unreporteddecisionofWrightJ.,thatillnesscausedbyfearforthesafetyofanyoneotherthanthe
plaintiffherselfwasnotcapableofgroundingliabilityaviewclearlynowunsustainableinthelightof
subsequentauthority.TheearlierIrishcaseofBellv.GreatNorthernRailwayCo.ofIreland(1890)26
L.R.Ir.428,wheretheplaintiffwaspersonallythreatenedbyaterrifyingexperience,wassimilarlyacase
wheretherewasnodifficultyatallinascertainingtheexistenceofaproximaterelationship.Therewas,
indeed,inthatcase,acontractualrelationshipaswell,fortheeventoccurredinthecourseofthecarriage
oftheplaintiffasapassengeronthedefendant'srailway.SotooSchneiderv.Eisovitch[1960]2Q.B.430,
wheretheplaintiffwasherselfdirectlyinvolvedasavictimintheaccidentinwhichherhusbandwas
killed.
Intothesamecategory,asitseemstome,fallthesocalled"rescuecases."Itiswellestablishedthatthe
defendantowesadutyofcarenotonlytothosewhoaredirectlythreatenedorinjuredbyhiscarelessacts
butalsotothosewho,asaresult,areinducedtogototheirrescueandsufferinjuryinsodoing.Thefact
thattheinjurysufferedispsychiatricandiscausedbytheimpactonthemindofbecominginvolvedin
personaldangerorinscenesofhorroranddestructionmakesnodifference.
"Dangerinvitesrescue.Thecryofdistressisthesummonstorelief...theact,whether
impulsiveordeliberate,isthechildoftheoccasion:"Wagnerv.InternationalRailwayCo.
(1921)232N.Y.176,180181,perCardozoJ.
SoinChadwickv.BritishRailwaysBoard[1967]1W.L.R.912,theplaintiffrecovereddamagesforthe
psychiatricillnesscausedtoherdeceasedhusbandthroughthetraumaticeffectsofhisgallantryandself
sacrificeinrescuingandcomfortingvictimsoftheLewishamrailwaydisaster.
Theseareallcaseswheretheplaintiffhas,toagreaterorlesserdegree,beenpersonallyinvolvedinthe
incidentoutofwhichtheactionarises,eitherthroughthedirectthreatofbodilyinjurytohimselforin
comingtotheaidofothersinjuredorthreatened.Intothesamecategory,Ibelieve,fallthosecasessuchas
Dooleyv.CammellLaird&Co.Ltd.[1951]1Lloyd'sRep.271,Galtv.BritishRailwaysBoard(1983)
133N.L.J.870,andWiggv.BritishRailwaysBoard,TheTimes,4February1986,wherethenegligentact
ofthedefendanthasputtheplaintiffinthepositionofbeing,orofthinkingthatheisabouttobeorhas
been,theinvoluntarycauseofanother'sdeathorinjuryandtheillnesscomplainedofstemsfromthe
shocktotheplaintiffoftheconsciousnessofthissupposedfact.Thefactthatthedefendant'snegligent
conducthasforeseeablyputtheplaintiffinthepositionofbeinganunwillingparticipantintheevent
establishesofitselfasufficientlyproximaterelationshipbetweenthemandtheprincipalquestionis
whether,inthecircumstances,injuryofthattypetothatplaintiffwasorwasnotreasonablyforeseeable.
Inthosecasesinwhich,asintheinstantappeals,theinjurycomplainedofisattributabletothegriefand
distressofwitnessingthemisfortuneofanotherpersoninaneventbywhichtheplaintiffisnotpersonally
threatenedorinwhichheisnotdirectlyinvolvedasanactor,theanalysisbecomesmorecomplex.The
inflictionofinjuryonanindividual,whetherthroughcarelessnessordeliberation,necessarilyproduces
consequencesbeyondthosetotheimmediatevictim.Inevitablytheimpactoftheeventanditsaftermath,
whetherimmediateorprolonged,isgoingtobefeltingreaterorlesserdegreebythosewithwhomthe
victimisconnectedwhetherbytiesofaffection,ofbloodrelationship,ofdutyorsimplyofbusiness.In
manycasesthosepersonsmaysuffernotonlyinjuredfeelingsorinconveniencebutadversefinancial
consequencesas,forinstance,bytheneedtocareforthevictimortheinterruptionornonperformanceof
hiscontractualobligationstothirdparties.Nevertheless,exceptinthosecaseswhichwerebasedupon
someancientandnowoutmodedconceptsofthequasiproprietorialrightsofhusbandsovertheirwives,
parentsovertheirchildrenoremployersovertheirmenialservants,thecommonlawhas,ingeneral,
declinedtoentertainclaimsforsuchconsequentialinjuriesfromthirdpartiessavepossiblywherelosshas
arisenfromthenecessaryperformanceofalegaldutyimposedonsuchpartybytheinjurytothevictim.
Eventheapparentexceptionstothis,theoldactionsforlossofahusband'srighttoconsortiumandfor
lossofservitiumofachildormenialservant,wereabolishedbytheAdministrationofJusticeAct1982.
So,forinstance,inKirkhamv.Boughey[1958]2Q.B.338,ahusband,whosewifehadbeenseverely
injuredinaroadaccidentasaresultofthedefendant'snegligence,failedtorecoverdamagesfora
reductioninhisearningsduetohishaving,becauseofhisanxietyforhiswife,declinedtoresumemore
remunerativeemploymentabroadalthoughinthatcaseDiplockJ.waspreparedtoallowhisclaimforthe
expensesincurredinprovidingmedicalcareforhiswifeonthegroundthattheplaintiffwasunderalegal
dutytoprovideit.SotooinBestv.SamuelFox&Co.Ltd.[1952]A.C.716,734,LordMortonof
Henrytonobserved:
"ithasneverbeenthelawofEnglandthataninvitor,whohasnegligentlybutunintentionally
injuredaninvitee,isliabletocompensateotherpersonswhohavesuffered,inonewayor
another,asaresultoftheinjurytotheinvitee.Iftheinjuredmanwasengagedinabusiness,
andtheinjuryisaseriousone,thebusinessmayhavetoclosedownandtheemployeesbe
dismissedadaughteroftheinjuredmanmayhavetogiveupworkwhichsheenjoysandstay
athometonurseafatherwhohasbeentransformedintoanirritableinvalidasaresultofthe
injury.Suchexamplescouldbeeasilymultiplied.Yettheinvitorisundernoliabilityto
compensatesuchpersons,forheowesthemnodutyandmaynotevenknowoftheir
existence."
Afortiorithelawwillnotcompensatesuchapersonforthementalanguishandevenillnesswhichmay
flowfromhavinglostawife,parentorchildorfrombeingcompelledtolookafteraninvalid,although
thereisastatutoryexceptiontothiswherethevictimdiesasaresultoftheaccidentandtheplaintiffishis
widoworminorunmarriedchild.Insuchcircumstancessection1AoftheFatalAccidentsAct1976
(substitutedbysection3oftheAdministrationofJusticeAct1982)givesalimitedrightofcompensation
forbereavement.
Beyondthis,however,thelawingeneralprovidesnoremedy,howeverseveretheconsequencesofthe
distressorgriefmaybetothehealthorwellbeingofthethirdpartyandhoweverclosehisrelationshipto
thevictim.Idoubtwhetherthereasonforthiscanbefoundbyanappealtologic,forthereis,ontheface
ofit,noreadilydiscerniblelogicalreasonwhyhewhocarelesslyinflictsaninjuryuponanothershould
notbeheldresponsibleforitsinevitableconsequencesnotonlytohimwhomayconvenientlybetermed
"theprimaryvictim"buttootherswhosufferasaresult.Itcannot,Ithink,beaccountedforbysayingthat
suchconsequencescannotreasonablybeforeseen.Itisreadilyforeseeablethatveryrealandeasily
ascertainableinjuryislikelytoresulttothosedependentupontheprimaryvictimorthoseuponwhom,as
aresultofnegligentlyinflictedinjury,theprimaryvictimhimselfbecomesdependent.Ifonegoesbackto
whatmayberegardedasthegenesisofthemodernlawoftortiousnegligencethatistosay,thejudgment
ofSirBaliolBrettM.R.inHeavenv.Pender(1883)11Q.B.D.503,509thereisnothinginitwhich
necessarilylimitstheliabilityofthetortfeasortocompensatingonlytheprimaryvictimoftheevent.What
wastherepostulatedwasasimpletestofattributedforesightofthatwhichtheordinaryperson,giventhe
hypotheticalsituationofhispausingtothinkabouttheconsequencesbeforeacting,wouldseetobea
likelyconsequenceofhisconduct.Thatsimpletest,describedbyLordAtkininhisclassicalexpositionin
Donoghuev.Stevenson[1932]AC562,580as"demonstrablytoowide"asindeeditclearlywaswas,
however,refinedbyhimintothemorerestricted"neighbour"testwhichintroduced,inadditiontothe
elementofreasonableforeseeability,theessentialbutillusiveconceptof"proximity"or"directness."
Citationofaprinciplesofamiliarmayjustlybedescribedastritebutitis,Ithink,ofcriticalimportancein
thecontextoftheinstantappeals.
Thefailureofthelawingeneraltocompensateforinjuriessustainedbypersonsunconnectedwiththe
eventprecipitatedbyadefendant'snegligencemustnecessarilyimportthelackofanylegaldutyowedby
thedefendanttosuchpersons.Thatcannot,Ithink,beattributabletosomearbitrarybutunenunciatedrule
of"policy"whichdrawsalineastheouterboundaryoftheareaofduty.Norcanitrationallybemadeto
restuponsuchinjurybeingwithouttheareaofreasonableforeseeability.Itmust,asitseemstome,be
attributablesimplytothefactthatsuchpersonsarenot,incontemplationoflaw,inarelationshipof
sufficientproximitytoordirectnesswiththetortfeasorastogiverisetoadutyofcare,thoughnodoubt
"policy,"ifthatistherightword,orperhapsmoreproperly,theimpracticabilityorunreasonablenessof
entertainingclaimstotheultimatelimitsoftheconsequencesofhumanactivity,necessarilyplaysapartin
thecourt'sperceptionofwhatissufficientlyproximate.
Whatismoredifficulttoaccountforiswhy,whenthelawingeneraldeclinestoextendtheareaof
compensationtothosewhoseinjuryarisesonlyfromthecircumstancesoftheirrelationshiptotheprimary
victim,anexceptionhasariseninthosecasesinwhichtheeventofinjurytotheprimaryvictimhasbeen
actuallywitnessedbytheplaintiffandtheinjuryclaimedisestablishedasstemmingfromthatfact.That
suchanexceptionexistsisnowtoowellestablishedtobecalledinquestion.Whatislessclear,however,
istheambitofthedutyinsuchcasesor,toputitanotherway,whatistheessentialcharacteristicofsuch
casesthatmarksthemofffromthosecasesofinjurytouninvolvedpersonsinwhichthelawdeniesany
remedyforinjuryofpreciselythesamesort.
Althoughitisconvenienttodescribetheplaintiffinsuchacaseasa"secondary"victim,thatdescription
mustnotbepermittedtoobscuretheabsoluteessentialityofestablishingadutyowedbythedefendant
directlytohimadutywhichdependsnotonlyuponthereasonableforeseeabilityofdamageofthetype
whichhasinfactoccurredtotheparticularplaintiffbutalsoupontheproximityordirectnessofthe
relationshipbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendant.Thedifficultyliesinidentifyingthefeatureswhich,
asbetweentwopersonswhomaysuffereffectivelyidenticalpsychiatricsymptomsasaresultofthe
impressionleftuponthembyanaccident,establishinthecaseofonewhowaspresentatornearthescene
oftheaccidentadutyinthedefendantwhichdoesnotexistinthecaseofonewhowasnot.Theanswer
cannot,Ithink,lieinthegreaterforeseeabilityofthesortofdamagewhichtheplaintiffhassuffered.The
traumaticeffecton,forinstance,amotheronthedeathofherchildisasreadilyforeseeableinacase
wherethecircumstancesaredescribedtoherbyaneyewitnessattheinquestasitisinacasewhereshe
learnsofitatahospitalimmediatelyaftertheevent.Norcanitbethemeresuddennessorunexpectedness
oftheevent,forthenewsbroughtbyapolicemanhoursaftertheeventmaybeassuddenandunexpected
totherecipientastheoccurrenceoftheeventistothespectatorpresentatthescene.Theanswerhas,asit
seemstome,tobefoundintheexistenceofacombinationofcircumstancesfromwhichthenecessary
degreeof"proximity"betweentheplaintiffandthedefendantcanbededuced.And,intheend,ithastobe
acceptedthattheconceptof"proximity"isanartificialonewhichdependsmoreuponthecourt's
perceptionofwhatisthereasonableareafortheimpositionofliabilitythanuponanylogicalprocessof
analogicaldeduction.
Thecommonfeaturesofallthereportedcasesofthistypedecidedinthiscountrypriortothedecisionof
HiddenJ.intheinstantcaseandinwhichtheplaintiffsucceededinestablishingliabilityare,first,thatin
eachcasetherewasamaritalorparentalrelationshipbetweentheplaintiffandtheprimaryvictim
secondly,thattheinjuryforwhichdamageswereclaimedarosefromthesuddenandunexpectedshockto
theplaintiff'snervoussystemthirdly,thattheplaintiffineachcasewaseitherpersonallypresentatthe
sceneoftheaccidentorwasinthemoreorlessimmediatevicinityandwitnessedtheaftermathshortly
afterwardsand,fourthly,thattheinjurysufferedarosefromwitnessingthedeathof,extremedangerto,or
injuryanddiscomfortsufferedbytheprimaryvictim.Lastly,ineachcasetherewasnotonlyanelementof
physicalproximitytotheeventbutaclosetemporalconnectionbetweentheeventandtheplaintiff's
perceptionofitcombinedwithacloserelationshipofaffectionbetweentheplaintiffandtheprimary
victim.Itmust,Ithink,befromtheseelementsthattheessentialrequirementofproximityistobe
deduced,towhichhastobeaddedthereasonableforeseeabilityonthepartofthedefendantthatinthat
combinationofcircumstancestherewasarealriskofinjuryofthetypesustainedbytheparticular
plaintiffasaresultofhisorherconcernfortheprimaryvictim.Theremay,indeed,benoprimary
"victim"infact.Itis,forinstance,readilyconceivablethataparentmaysufferinjury,whetherphysicalor
psychiatric,asaresultofwitnessinganegligentactwhichplaceshisorherchildinextremejeopardybut
fromwhich,intheevent,thechildescapesunharmed.Idoubtverymuch,forinstance,whetherKingv.
Phillips[1953]1Q.B.429,whereamother'sclaimfordamagesforshockcausedbywitnessinganear
accidenttoherchildwasrejected,wouldbedecidedinthesamewaytodayinthelightoflaterauthorities.
Itwould,forinstance,havemadenodifferencetotheresultinHambrookv.StokesBrothers[1925]1
K.B.141,iftheplaintiff'schildhadnot,asshedidinfact,sufferedanyinjuryatall.Inthatcase,theCourt
ofAppeal,byamajority,heldthataplaintiffwho,whileusingthehighway,hadseenarunawaylorry
whichthreatened,andindeedsubsequentlycaused,injurytoherchild,wasentitledtorecoversolongas
theshockfromwhichsheclaimedtobesufferingwasduetoherownvisualperceptionandnottowhat
shehadbeensubsequentlytoldbythirdpersons.Theprimarydifficultyherewasthatofestablishingthe
foreseeabilityoftheinjurywhichtheplaintiffsufferedratherthantheproximityofherrelationshiptothe
defendant,whoowedherthesamedutyasheowedtoanyotherusersofthehighway.Itisinterestingto
note,however,thatAtkinL.J.(atp.158)clearlycontemplatedthepossibilityofasuccessfulactionatthe
suitofamerebystandergivensufficientlyhorrifyingcircumstances.InOwensv.LiverpoolCorporation
[1939]1K.B.394,mournersatafuneral,apparentlyrelativesofthedeceased,recovereddamagesfor
shockallegedlyoccasionedbynegligenceofthedefendant'stramdriverindamagingthehearseand
upsettingthecoffin.Althoughthislendssupporttothesuggestionthatsuchdamagesmayberecoverable
byamerespectator,itisdoubtfulhowfarthecase,whichwasdisapprovedbythreemembersofthis
HouseinBourhillv.Young[1943]AC92,100,110and116,canbereliedupon.
InBourhillv.Youngthepursuerwasneitherrelatedtoorknowntothedeceasedcyclist,whowasthe
victimofhisownnegligence,nordidshewitnesstheaccident,althoughsheheardthecrashfromsome50
feetawayandsometimelatersawbloodontheroad.Shehadnoapprehensionofinjurytoherselfbut
simplysustainedanervousshockasaresultofthenoiseofthecollision.Thatinjurysustainedthrough
nervousshockwascapableofgroundingaclaimfordamageswasneverindoubt,butthepursuer'sclaim
failedbecauseinjuryofthattypetoherwasnotwithintheareaofthedeceased'sreasonable
contemplation.Thephysicalproximityofthepursuertothepointofcollisionwasoutsidetheareain
whichthedeceasedcouldreasonablyhavecontemplatedanyinjurytoherandthatansweredboththe
questionofwhethertherewasreasonableforesightandwhethertherewasanyrelationshipwiththe
deceasedinferringadutyofcare.Thecaseisthusagoodillustrationofthecoalescenceofthetwo
elementsofreasonableforeseeabilityandproximity,butotherwiseitaffordslittleassistancein
establishinganycriterionforthedegreeofproximitywhichwouldestablishthedutyofcare,savethatit
impliesnecessityforacloserdegreeofphysicalpropinquitytotheeventthanhasbeenthoughtnecessary
insubsequentcases.Itis,however,worthnotingthatthepursuer'sclaimwasnotdismissedinlimineon
thegroundthatshewasnomorethan,athighest,amerespectator.
Hinzv.Berry[1970]2Q.B.40wasacasewheretheonlyissuewasnotrecoverabilityofdamagesbutthe
correctquantumintheparticularcircumstances.Itisausefulillustrationoftheextremedifficultyof
separatingthecompensatableinjuryarisingfromthepresenceoftheplaintiffatthesceneofanaccident
fromthenoncompensatableconsequencesflowingfromthesimplefactthattheaccidenthasoccurred,
butitisoflittleassistanceotherwise,saveforahintinthejudgmentofLordDenningM.R.thatanaward
ofdamagesforshockcausedbythesightofanaccidentmayberestrictedtocaseswheretheplaintiffis"a
closerelative."
Theprincipalargumentintheappealhascentredroundthequestionwhether,astheplaintiffscontend,the
decisionofthisHouseinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410,establishesasthecriterionofaduty
owedbythedefendantstotheplaintiffasimpletestoftheforeseeabilityofinjuryofthetypeinfact
sustainedorwhether,asthedefendantmaintains,thatcaseimportsalsoanecessaryrequirement,eitheras
amatterofpublicpolicyorasameasureofproximity,oftheexistenceofsomeclosebloodormarital
relationshipbetweentheappellantsandthevictimsofthenegligentconduct.Inthatcasetheprimary
victimsoftheaccidentcausedbytherespondent'snegligencewerethehusbandandtwochildrenofthe
appellant,whowereinjured,andanotherchildofherswhowaskilled.Atthetimeoftheaccidentshewas
sometwomilesawaybutshewastakenaboutanhourlatertothehospitalwheretheinjuredwerebeing
treatedandsawtheminmoreorlessthestateinwhichtheyhadbeenbroughtin.Sheclaimeddamagesfor
thepsychiatricinjurywhichsheallegedtobetheresult.Thetrialjudgehavingheldthattheinjury
complainedofwasnotreasonablyforeseeable,hisdecisionwasupheldbytheCourtofAppeal[1981]
Q.B.599ontheratherdifferentgrounds(StephensonL.J.)thatalthoughboththetestsofreasonable
foreseeabilityandproximityweresatisfied,adutyofcarewasprecludedbyconsiderationsofpublic
policyand(GriffithsL.J.)thatnodutywasowedtothosewhoarenowherenearthesceneofanaccident
whenitoccurs.InthisHouse,althoughthemembersoftheCommitteewereunanimousinallowingthe
appealthespeechesdisplayeddistinctdifferencesofapproach.Allwereagreedthatactuallywitnessingor
beingpresentatornearthesceneofanaccidentwasnotessentialtogroundliabilityinanappropriate
case,butthatthedutymightequallybeowedtoonewhocomesupontheimmediateaftermathofthe
event.Thussuchaperson,givenalwaysthereasonableforeseeabilityoftheinjuryinfactsustainedandof
suchpersonswitnessingit,maybewithintheareaofproximityinwhichadutyofcaremaybefoundto
exist.
Thediversityofviewaroseatthenextstage,thatistosaythatofascertainingwhethertherelationship
betweentheplaintiffandtheprimaryvictimwassuchastosupporttheexistenceofsuchaduty.Thatcan
beexpressedinvariousways.Itmaybeaskedwhether,asamatterofthepolicyofthelaw,arelationship
outsidethecategoriesofthoseinwhichliabilityhasbeenestablishedbypastdecisionscanbeconsidered
sufficientlyproximatetogiverisetotheduty,quiteregardlessofthequestionofforeseeability.Oritmay
beaskedwhetherinjuryofthetypewithwhichtheseappealsareconcernedcaneverbeconsideredtobe
reasonablyforeseeablewheretherelationshipbetweentheplaintiffandtheprimaryvictimismoreremote
thanthatofanestablishedcategory.Or,again,itmaybeaskedwhether,evengivenproximityand
foreseeability,neverthelessthelawmustdrawanarbitrarylineattheboundaryoftheestablishedcategory
orsomeotherwiderornarrowercategoryofrelationshipsbeyondwhichnodutywillbedeemedtoexist.
LordWilberforce,atp.422,appearstohavefavouredthelastofthesethreeapproaches,butfoundit,in
theevent,unnecessarytodeterminetheboundarysincethecasethenbeforetheHouseconcernedaclaim
withinacategorywhichhadalreadybeenclearlyestablished.Hedidnotaltogetherclosethedoortoan
enlargementoftheareaofthepossibledutybutobserved:
"othercasesinvolvinglesscloserelationshipsmustbeverycarefullyscrutinised.Icannotsay
thattheyshouldneverbeadmitted.Thecloserthetie(notmerelyinrelationship,butincare)
thegreatertheclaimforconsideration.Theclaim,inanycase,hastobejudgedinthelightof
theotherfactors,suchasproximitytothesceneintimeandplace,andthenatureofthe
accident."
Insofarasthisconstitutedaninvitationtocourtsseizedofsimilarproblemsinthefuturetodrawlines
determinedbytheirperceptionofwhatpublicpolicyrequires,itwasaninvitationacceptedbyParkerL.J.
intheCourtofAppealintheinstantcase,ante,pp.359H360G.Itwashisviewthatliabilityshould,asa
matterofpolicy,determineattherelationshipofparentorspouseandshouldberestrictedtopersons
presentatorattheimmediateaftermathoftheincidentfromwhichinjuryarose.TheapproachofLord
EdmundDaviesandLordRussellofKillowen,asIreadtheirspeeches,wassimilartothatofLord
Wilberforce.Ontheotherhand,LordBridgeofHarwich,withwhomLordScarmanagreed,rejectedan
appealtopolicyconsiderationsasajustificationforfixingarbitrarylinesofdemarcationofthedutyin
negligence.LordBridgepropoundedsimplyacriterionofthereasonableforeseeabilitybythedefendant
ofthedamagetotheplaintiffwhichhadoccurredwithoutnecessarilyinvokingphysicalpresenceator
propinquitytotheaccidentoritsaftermathoranyparticularrelationshiptotheprimaryvictimaslimiting
factors,although,ofcourse,clearlytheseelementswouldbeimportantinthedeterminationofwhat,on
thefactsofanygivencase,wouldbereasonablyforeseeable.Heexpressedhimselfasincomplete
agreementwithTobrinerJ.inDillonv.Legg(1968)29A.L.R.3d1316,1326,thattheexistenceofthe
dutymustdependonreasonableforeseeabilityand
"mustnecessarilybeadjudicatedonlyuponacasebycasebasis.Wecannotnow
predeterminedefendant'sobligationineverysituationbyafixedcategorynoimmutablerule
canestablishtheextentofthatobligationforeverycircumstanceofthefuture."
CounselfortheplaintiffsandforthedefendantrespectivelyhaveinvitedyourLordshipstoacceptor
rejectoneorotherofthesetwoapproachesonthefootingthattheyrepresentmutuallyexclusive
alternativesandtosayontheonehandthattheonlycriterionfortheestablishmentofliabilityisthe
reasonableforeseeabilityofdamageinaccordancewiththeviewsexpressedbyLordBridge(which,itis
urged,existedinthecaseofeachoftheplaintiffs)or,ontheotherhand,thatliabilitymust,asamatterof
publicpolicy,bedecreedtostopatthecaseofaspouseorparentandinanyeventmustberestrictedto
injurytoapersonwhowasphysicallypresentattheeventoratitsaftermathandwitnessedoneorthe
other.
MyLords,formypart,IhavenotfeltabletoaccepteitherofthesetwoextremepositionsnordoIbelieve
thattheviewsexpressedinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410,areasirreconcilableashasbeen
suggested.IfImaysaysowithrespect,theviewsexpressedbyLordBridgeareopentothecriticismthat,
ontheirface,theyentirelyignorethecriticalelementofproximitytowhichreferencehasbeenmade,
takingusbacktothe"demonstrablytoowide"propositionofBrettM.R.inHeavenv.Pender,11Q.B.D.
503.ButthecriticalpartplayedbythiselementisveryclearlyexpressedbyLordBridgehimselfinhis
speechinCaparoIndustriesPlc.v.Dickman[1990]2AC605,618,621,623,andIdonotbelieveforone
momentthat,inexpressinghisviewwithregardtoforeseeabilityinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC
410,hewasoverlookingthatelementwhichis,afterall,implicitinanydiscussionoftortiousnegligence
baseduponLordAtkin'sclassicalstatementofprinciple,orwasdoingmorethanmeetingtheargument
whichhadbeenadvancedthat,evengivenforeseeability,animmutablelineeitherhadbeenoroughttobe
drawnbythelawatthefurthestpointreachedbypreviouslydecidedcases.Equally,IdonotreadLord
Wilberforce(whoseremarksinthiscontextwere,inanyevent,obitersincethequestionoffixinglinesof
demarcationbyreferencetopublicpolicydidnotinfactarise)asexcludingaltogetherapragmatic
approachtoclaimsofthisnature.Inanyevent,thereisinmanycases,asforinstancecasesofdirect
physicalinjuryinahighwayaccident,analmostnecessarycoalescenceofthetwinelementsof
foreseeabilityandproximity,theoneflowingfromtheother.Butwheresuchconvergenceisnotself
evident,thequestionofproximityrequiresseparateconsideration.Indecidingitthecourthasreferenceto
nodefinedcriteriaandthedecisionnecessarilyreflectstosomeextentthecourt'sconceptofwhatpolicy
orperhapscommonsenserequires.
MyLords,speakingformyself,Iseenologicandnovirtueinseekingtolaydownasamatterof"policy"
categoriesofrelationshipwithinwhichclaimsmaysucceedandwithoutwhichtheyaredoomedtofailure
inlimine.Sorigidanapproachwould,Ithink,workgreatinjusticeandcannotberationallyjustified.
Obviouslyaclaimfordamagesforpsychiatricinjurybyaremoterelativeoftheprimaryvictimwill
factuallyrequiremostcautiousscrutinyandfacesconsiderableevidentiarydifficulties.Equallyobviously,
theforeseeabilityofsuchinjurytosuchapersonwillbemoredifficulttoestablishthansimilarinjurytoa
spouseorparentoftheprimaryvictim.ButthesearefactualdifficultiesandIcanseenologicandno
policyreasonforexcludingclaimsbymoreremoterelatives.Suppose,forinstance,thattheprimary
victimhaslivedwiththeplaintifffor40years,bothbeingunderthebeliefthattheyarelawfullymarried.
Doesshesufferlessshockorgriefbecauseitissubsequentlydiscoveredthattheirmarriagewasinvalid?
Thesourceoftheshockanddistressinallthesecasesistheaffectionaterelationshipwhichexisted
betweentheplaintiffandthevictimandthetraumaticeffectofthenegligenceisequallyforeseeable,
giventhatrelationship,howevertherelationshiparises.Equally,Iwouldnotexcludethepossibility
envisagedbymynobleandlearnedfriend,LordAckner,ofasuccessfulclaim,givencircumstancesof
suchhorroraswouldbelikelytotraumatiseeventhemostphlegmaticspectator,byamerebystander.
Thatisnot,ofcourse,tosaythattheclosenessoftherelationshipbetweenplaintiffandprimaryvictimis
irrelevant,forthelikelihoodorunlikelihoodofapersoninthatrelationshipsufferingshockofthedegree
claimedfromtheeventmustbeamostmaterialfactortobetakenintoaccountindeterminingwhether
thatconsequencewasreasonablyforeseeable.Ingeneral,forinstance,itmightbesupposedthatthe
likelihoodoftraumaofsuchadegreeastocausepsychiatricillnesswouldbelessinthecaseofafriendor
abrotherinlawthaninthatofaparentorfiance.
Butineverycasetheunderlyingandessentialpostulateisarelationshipofproximitybetweenplaintiff
anddefendantanditisthis,asitseemstome,whichmustbethedeterminingfactorintheinstantappeals.
NocasepriortothehearingbeforeHiddenJ.fromwhichtheseappealsarisehascountenancedanaward
ofdamagesforinjuriessufferedwheretherewasnotatthetimeoftheeventadegreeofphysical
propinquitybetweentheplaintiffandtheeventcausedbythedefendant'sbreachofdutytotheprimary
victimnorwheretheshocksustainedbytheplaintiffwasnoteithercontemporaneouswiththeeventor
separatedfromitbyarelativelyshortintervaloftime.Thenecessaryelementofproximitybetween
plaintiffanddefendantisfurnished,atleastinpart,bybothphysicalandtemporalpropinquityandalsoby
thesuddenanddirectvisualimpressionontheplaintiff'smindofactuallywitnessingtheeventorits
immediateaftermath.TouseLordWilberforce'swordsinMcLoughlin'scase[1983]1AC410,422423:
space....Theshockmustcomethroughsightorhearingoftheeventorofitsimmediate
aftermath."
Grief,sorrow,deprivationandthenecessityforcaringforlovedoneswhohavesufferedinjuryor
misfortunemust,Ithink,beconsideredasordinaryandinevitableincidentsoflifewhich,regardlessof
individualsusceptibilities,mustbesustainedwithoutcompensation.Itwouldbeinaccurateandhurtfulto
suggestthatgriefismadeanythelessrealordeprivationmoretolerablebyamoregradualrealisation,but
toextendliabilitytocoverinjuryinsuchcaseswouldbetoextendthelawinadirectionforwhichthereis
nopressingpolicyneedandinwhichthereisnologicalstoppingpoint.Inmyopinion,thenecessary
proximitycannotbesaidtoexistwheretheelementsofimmediacy,closenessoftimeandspace,and
directvisualorauralperceptionareabsent.IwouldagreewiththeviewexpressedbyNolanL.J.thatthere
maywellbecircumstanceswheretheelementofvisualperceptionmaybeprovidedbywitnessingthe
actualinjurytotheprimaryvictimonsimultaneoustelevision,butthatisnotthecaseinanyoftheinstant
appealsandIagreewithmynobleandlearnedfriend,LordKeithofKinkel,that,forthereasonswhichhe
gives,thetelevisedimagesseenbythevariousplaintiffscannotbeequiparatedwith"sightorhearingof
theevent."Nordidtheyprovidethedegreeofimmediacyrequiredtosustainaclaimfordamagesfor
nervousshock.Thattheyweresufficienttogiverisetoworryandconcerncannotbeindoubt,butineach
caseotherthanthoseofBrianHarrisonandRobertAlcock,whowerepresentattheground,theplaintiff
learnedofthedeathofthevictimatsecondhandandmanyhourslater.AsIreadtheevidence,theshockin
eachcasearosenotfromtheoriginalimpactofthetransmittedimagewhichdidnot,ashasbeenpointed
out,depictthesufferingofrecognisableindividuals.Theseimagesprovidednodoubtthematrixfor
imaginedconsequencesgivingrisetograveconcernandworry,followedbyadawningconsciousness
overanextendedperiodthattheimaginedconsequencehadoccurred,finallyconfirmedbynewsofthe
deathand,insomecases,subsequentvisualidentificationofthevictim.Thetraumaiscreatedinpartby
suchconfirmationandinpartbythelinkinginthemindoftheplaintiffofthatconfirmationtothe
previouslyabsorbedimage.Toextendthenotionofproximityincasesofimmediatelycreatednervous
shocktothismoreelongatedand,tosomeextent,retrospectiveprocessmayseemalogicalanalogical
development.But,asIshallendeavourtoshow,thelawinthisareaisnotwhollylogicalandwhilst
havingeverysympathywiththeplaintiffs,whosesufferingisnotindoubtandisnottobeunderrated,I
cannotformypartseeanypressingreasonofpolicyfortakingthisfurtherstepalongaroadwhichmust
ultimatelyleadtovirtuallylimitlessliability.Whilst,therefore,Icannot,forthereasonswhichIhave
soughttoexplain,acceptMr.Woodward'ssubmissionthatitisforyourLordshipstolaydown,on
groundsofpublicpolicy,anarbitraryrequirementoftheexistenceofaparticularbloodormarital
relationshipasapreconditionofliability,Iequallybelievethatfurtherpragmaticextensionsofthe
acceptedconceptsofwhatconstitutesproximitymustbeapproachedwiththegreatestcaution.
McLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410wasacasewhichitselfrepresentedanextensionnot,asIthink,
whollyfreefromdifficultyandanyfurtherwideningoftheareaofpotentialliabilitytocaterforthe
expandedandexpandingrangeofthemediaofcommunicationought,inmyview,tobeundertakenrather
byParliament,withfullopportunityforpublicdebateandrepresentation,thanbytheprocessofjudicial
extrapolation.
InthecaseofbothBrianHarrisonandRobertAlcock,althoughbothwerepresentatthegroundandsaw
sceneswhichwereobviouslydistressingandsuchastocausegraveworryandconcern,theirperceptionof
theactualconsequencesofthedisastertothosetowhomtheywererelatedwasagaingradual.Inmy
judgment,thenecessaryproximitywaslackingintheircasestoo,butIalsoagreewithmynobleand
learnedfriend,LordKeithofKinkel,thatthereisalsolackingthenecessaryelementofreasonable
foreseeability.Accordingly,ItoowoulddismisstheappealsanditfollowsfromwhatIhavesaidthatI
agreethatthecorrectnessofthedecisionsinHevicanv.Ruane[1991]3AllE.R.65andRavenscroftv.
RederiaktieblagetTransatlantic[1991]3AllE.R.73mustbeseriouslydoubted.
IwouldonlyaddthatIcannot,formypart,regardthepresentstateofthelawaseitherentirely
satisfactoryoraslogicallydefensible.Ifthereexistsasufficientdegreeofproximitytosustainaclaimfor
damagesfornervousshock,whyitmaybejustifiablybeasked,doesnotthatproximityalsosupportthat
perhapsmoreeasilyforeseeablelosswhichtheplaintiffmaysufferasadirectresultofthedeathorinjury
fromwhichtheshockarises.Thatitdoesnotis,Ithink,clearfromHinzv.Berry[1970]2Q.B.40(see
particularlythejudgmentofLordPearson,atp.44).Butthereasonwhyitdoesnothas,Ithink,tobe
foundnotinlogicbutinpolicy.WhilstnotdissentingfromthecasebycaseapproachadvocatedbyLord
BridgeinMcLoughlin'scase,theultimateboundarieswithinwhichclaimsfordamagesinsuchcasescan
beentertainedmustIthinkdependintheenduponconsiderationsofpolicy.Forexample,inhis
illuminatingjudgmentinJaenschv.Coffey,(1984)155C.L.R.549,DeaneJ.expressedtheviewthatno
claimcouldbeentertainedasamatteroflawinacasewheretheprimaryvictimisthenegligentdefendant
himselfandtheshocktotheplaintiffarisesfromwitnessingthevictim'sselfinflictedinjury.Thequestion
doesnot,fortunately,falltobedeterminedintheinstantcase,butIsuspectthatanEnglishcourtwouldbe
likelytotakeasimilarview.Butifthatbeso,thelimitationmustbebaseduponpolicyratherthanupon
logicforthesufferingandshockofawifeormotheratwitnessingthedeathofherhusbandorsonisjust
asimmediate,justasgreatandjustasforeseeablewhethertheaccidentbeduetothevictim'sownorto
another'snegligenceandiftheclaimisbased,asitmustbe,onthecombinationofproximityand
foreseeability,thereiscertainlynologicalreasonwhyaremedyshouldbedeniedinsuchacase.Indeed,
Mr.Hytner,fortheplaintiffs,hasboldlyclaimedthatitshouldnotbe.Take,forinstance,thecaseofa
motherwhosuffersshockandpsychiatricinjurythroughwitnessingthedeathofhersonwhenhe
negligentlywalksinfrontofanoncomingmotorcar.Ifliabilityistobedeniedinsuchacasesuchdenial
canonlybebecausethepolicyofthelawforbidssuchaclaim,foritisdifficulttovisualiseagreater
proximityoragreaterdegreeofforseeability.Moreover,Icanvisualisegreatdifficultyarising,ifthisbe
thelaw,wheretheaccident,thoughnotsolelycausedbytheprimaryvictimhasbeenmaterially
contributedtobyhisnegligence.If,forinstance,theprimaryvictimishimself75percent.responsiblefor
theaccident,itwouldbeacuriousandwhollyunfairsituationiftheplaintiffwereenabledtorecover
damagesforhisorhertraumaticinjuryfromthepersonresponsibleonlyinaminordegreewhilsthein
turnremainedunabletorecoveranycontributionfromthepersonprimarilyresponsiblesincethelatter's
negligencevisvistheplaintiffwouldnotevenhavebeentortious.Policyconsiderationssuchasthis
could,Icannothelpfeeling,bemuchbetteraccommodatediftherightsofpersonsinjuredinthisway
weretobeenshrinedinandlimitedbylegislationastheyhavebeenintheAustralianstatutelawtowhich
mynobleandlearnedfriend,LordAckner,hasreferred.
LORDJAUNCEYOFTULLICHETTLE
MyLords,forsome90yearsithasbeenrecognisedthatnervousshocksustainedindependentlyof
physicalinjuryandresultinginpsychiatricillnesscangiverisetoaclaimfordamagesinanaction
foundedonnegligence.Thelawhasdevelopedincrementally.InDulieuv.White&Sons[1901]2KB
669,aplaintiffwhosufferednervousshockasaresultoffearsforherownsafetycausedbythe
defendant'snegligencewasheldtohaveacauseofaction.HoweverKennedyJ.said,atp.675,thatif
nervousshockoccasionedbynegligencewastogiveacauseofactionitmustarise"fromareasonable
fearofimmediatepersonalinjurytooneself."InHambrookv.StokesBrothers[1925]1K.B.141,
KennedyJ.'sforegoinglimitationwasdisapprovedbythemajorityoftheCourtofAppealwhoheldthata
motherwhohadsustainednervousshockasaresultoffearforthesafetyofherthreechildrenduetothe
movementofanunmannedlorryhadacauseofactionagainsttheownerofthelorry.Until1983however
therehadinEnglandbeennocaseinwhichaplaintiffhadbeenabletorecoverdamagesfornervous
shockwhentheeventgivingrisetotheshockhadoccurredoutofsightandoutofearshot.Iusetheword
"event"asincludingtheaccidentanditsimmediateaftermath.InMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC
410,awifeandamothersufferednervousshockafterseeingherhusbandandchildreninahospitalto
whichtheyhadbeentakenafteraroadaccident.Thewifewasnotpresentatthelocusbutreachedthe
hospitalbeforeherhusbandandsonanddaughterhadbeencleanedupandwhentheywereallvery
distressed.ThiswasthefirstcaseintheUnitedKingdominwhichaplaintiffwhoneithersawnorheard
theaccidentnorsawitsaftermathatthelocussuccessfullyclaimeddamagesfornervousshock.These
appealsseektoextendfurtherthecircumstancesinwhichdamagesfornervousshockmayberecovered.
Istartwiththepropositionthattheexistenceofadutyofcareonthepartofthedefendantdoesnotdepend
onforeseeabilityalone.Reasonableforeseeabilityissubjecttocontrols.InsupportofthispropositionI
relyonthespeechofLordWilberforceinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410,420F421Aandon
thecarefullyreasonedjudgmentofDeaneJ.intheHighCourtofAustraliainJaenschv.Coffey,(1984)
155C.L.R.549,578586.Inacaseofnegligencecausingphysicalinjurytoanemployeeortoaroaduser
reasonableforeseeabilitymaywellbetheonlycriterionbywhichliabilitycomestobejudged.However
inthecaseofnegligencecausingshockdifferentconsiderationsapplybecauseofthewiderangeofpeople
whomaybeaffected.ForthisreasonLordWilberforcesaidinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410,
421422:
"thereremains...arealneedforthelawtoplacesomelimitationupontheextentof
admissibleclaims.Itisnecessarytoconsiderthreeelementsinherentinanyclaim:theclass
ofpersonswhoseclaimsshouldberecognisedtheproximityofsuchpersonstotheaccident
andthemeansbywhichtheshockiscaused."
Theclassofpersonswithrecognisableclaimswillbedeterminedbythelaw'sapproachastowhoought
accordingtoitsstandardsofvalueandjusticetohavebeeninthedefendant'scontemplation:again
McLoughlinv.O'Brian,perLordWilberforce,atp.420F.Therequisiteelementofproximityinthe
relationofthepartiesalsoconstitutesanimportantcontrolonthetestofreasonableforeseeability:Jaensch
v.Coffey,(1984)155C.L.R.549,578586,perDeaneJ.Themeansbywhichtheshockiscaused
constitutesathirdcontrol,althoughintheseappealsIfinditdifficulttoseparatethisfromproximity.
Thepresentpositioninrelationtorecognisableclaimsisthatparentsandspouseshavebeenheldentitled
torecoverforshockcausedbyfearforthesafetyoftheirchildrenortheotherspouse.Noremoterrelative
hassuccessfullyclaimedintheUnitedKingdom.Howeverarescuerandacranedriverhaverecovered
damagesfornervousshocksustainedasaresultoffearforthesafetyofothersincircumstancestowhichI
mustnowadvert.
InDooleyv.CammellLaird&Co.Ltd.[1951]1Lloyd'sRep.271,DonovanJ.awardeddamagestoa
cranedriverwhosufferednervousshockwhenaropeconnectingaslingtothecranehookssnapped
causingtheloadtofallintotheholdofashipinwhichmenwereworking.Thenervousshockresulted
fromtheplaintiff'sfearthatthefallingloadwouldinjureorkillsomeofhisfellowworkmen.DonovanJ.
drewtheinferencethatthemenintheholdwerefriendsoftheplaintiffandlaterstated,atp.277:
"Furthermore,ifthedriverofthecraneconcernedfearsthattheloadmayhavefallenupon
someofhisfellowworkmen,andthatfearisnotbaselessorextravagant,thenitis,Ithink,a
consequencereasonablytohavebeenforeseenthathemayhimselfsufferanervousshock."
AlthoughDonovanJ.treatedthemattersimplyasoneofreasonableforeseeability,Iconsiderthatthecase
wasaveryspecialone.UnlikethethreecasestowhichIhavereferredinwhichtheplaintiffwasmerely
anobserveroftheaccidentoritsimmediateaftermath,Dooleywasoperatingthecraneandwastherefore
intimatelyinvolvedin,albeitinnowayresponsiblefor,theaccident.Inthesecircumstancesthe
defendantscouldreadilyhaveforeseenthathewouldbehorrifiedandshockedbythefailureoftherope
andtheconsequentaccidentwhichhehadnopowertoprevent.Idonotconsiderthatthiscaseisof
assistancewhere,ashere,theplaintiffswerenotpersonallyinvolvedinthedisaster.InChadwickv.
BritishRailwaysBoard[1967]1W.L.R.912,theplaintiffrecovereddamagesfornervousshocksustained
asaresultofhisprolongedrescueeffortsatthesceneofaseriousrailwayaccidentwhichhadoccurred
nearhishome.Theshockwascausedneitherbyfearforhisownsafetynorforthatofcloserelations.The
positionoftherescuerwasrecognisedbyCardozoJ.inWagnerv.InternationalRailwayCo.,232N.Y.
176,180:
"Dangerinvitesrescue.Thecryofdistressisthesummonstorelief.Thelawdoesnotignore
thesereactionsofthemindintracingconducttoitsconsequences.Itrecognisesthemas
normal.Itplacestheireffectswithintherangeofthenaturalandprobable.Thewrongthat
imperilslifeisawrongtotheimperilledvictimitisawrongalsotohisrescuer."
LordWilberforceinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410,419Bconsideredthattheprincipleof
rescuersoughttobeaccepted.Thisisaparticularinstancewherethelawnotonlyconsidersthatthe
individualresponsibleforanaccidentshouldforeseethatpersonswillcometotherescueandmaybe
shockedbywhattheyseebutalsoconsidersitappropriatethatheshouldowetothemadutyofcare.Ido
nothoweverconsiderthateitherofthesecasesjustifythefurtherdevelopmentofthelawsoughtbythe
plaintiffs.
OfthesixplaintiffswhoweresuccessfulbeforeHiddenJ.onlyone,wholosttwobrothers,waspresentat
theground.Theotherssawthedisasterontelevision,twoofthemlosingasonandtheremainingthree
losingbrothers.Ofthefourplaintiffswhowereunsuccessfulbeforethejudge,onewholosthisbrotherin
lawwasattheground,onewholostherfiancesawthedisasterontelevision,anotherwholostherbrother
heardinitialnewswhileshoppingandmoredetailsonthewirelessduringtheeveningandathirdwholost
agrandsonheardofthedisasteronthewirelessandlatersawarecordedtelevisionprogramme.Thusall
buttwooftheplaintiffswereclaiminginrespectofshockresultingfromthedeathsofpersonsoutsidethe
categoriesofrelationssofarrecognisedbythelawforthepurposesofthistypeofaction.Itwasarguedon
theirbehalfthatthelawhasneverexcludedstrangerstothevictimfromclaimingfornervousshock
resultingfromtheaccident.InsupportofthispropositiontheplaintiffsreliedonDooleyv.CammellLaird
&Co.Ltd.andChadwickv.BritishRailwaysBoardaswellasuponthefollowingpassagefromthe
judgmentofAtkinL.J.inHambrookv.StokesBrothers[1925]1K.B.141,157:
"PersonallyIseenoreasonforexcludingthebystanderinthehighwaywhoreceivesinjuryin
thesamewayfromapprehensionofortheactualsightofinjurytoathirdparty."
HoweverthesuggestedinclusionofthebystanderhasnotmetwithapprovalinthisHouse.InBourhillv.
Young[1943]AC92,117,LordPortersaid:
"Itisnoteveryemotionaldisturbanceoreveryshockwhichshouldhavebeenforeseen.The
driverofacarorvehicle,eventhoughcareless,isentitledtoassumethattheordinary
frequenterofthestreetshassufficientfortitudetoenduresuchincidentsasmayfromtimeto
timebeexpectedtooccurinthem,includingthenoiseofacollisionandthesightofinjuryto
others,andisnottobeconsiderednegligenttowardsonewhodoesnotpossessthecustomary
phlegm."
InMcLoughlinv.O'Brian[1983]1AC410LordWilberforcesaid,atp.422,thatexistinglawdeniedthe
claimsoftheordinarybystander:
"eitheronthebasisthatsuchpersonsmustbeassumedtobepossessedoffortitudesufficient
toenablethemtoendurethecalamitiesofmodernlife,orthatdefendantscannotbeexpected
tocompensatetheworldatlarge."
WhileitisnotnecessaryintheseappealstodeterminewherestandstheordinarybystanderIamsatisified
thathecannotbeprayedinaidbytheplaintiffs.
Shouldclaimsfordamagesfornervousshockincircumstancessuchasthepresentberestrictedtoparents
andspousesorshouldtheybeextendedtootherrelativesandclosefriendsand,ifso,where,ifatall,
shouldthelinebedrawn?InMcLoughlinv.O'BrianLordWilberforceinthecontextoftheclassof
personswhoseclaimshouldberecognisedsaid:
"Asregardstheclassofpersons,thepossiblerangeisbetweentheclosestoffamilytiesof
parentandchild,orhusbandandwifeandtheordinarybystander.Existinglawrecognises
theclaimsofthefirst:itdeniesthatofthesecond...Inmyopinion,thesepositionsare
justifiable,andsincethepresentcasefallswithinthefirstclass,itisstrictlyunnecessaryto
saymore.Ithink,however,thatitshouldfollowthatothercasesinvolvinglessclose
relationshipsmustbeverycarefullyscrutinised.Icannotsaythattheyshouldneverbe
admitted.Thecloserthetie(notmerelyinrelationship,butincare)thegreatertheclaimfor
consideration.Theclaim,inanycase,hastobejudgedinthelightoftheotherfactors,such
asproximitytothesceneintimeandplace,andthenatureoftheaccident."
IwouldrespectfullyagreewithLordWilberforcethatcasesinvolvinglesscloserelativesshouldbevery
carefullyscrutinised.That,however,isnottosaytheymustnecessarilybeexcluded.Theunderlyinglogic
ofallowingclaimsofparentsandspousesisthatitcanreadilybeforeseenbythetortfeasorthatifthey
saworwereinvolvedintheimmediateaftermathofaseriousaccidentordisastertheywould,becauseof
theircloserelationshipofloveandaffectionwiththevictimbelikelytosuffernervousshock.Theremay,
however,beotherswhosetiesofrelationshipareasstrong.Idonotconsiderthatitwouldbeprofitableto
tryanddefinewhosuchothersmightbeortodrawanydividinglinebetweenonedegreeofrelationship
andanother.Todrawsuchalinewouldnecessarilybearbitraryandlackinginlogic.Inmyviewthe
properapproachistoexamineeachcaseonitsownfactsinordertoseewhethertheclaimanthas
establishedsoclosearelationshipofloveandaffectiontothevictimasmightreasonablybeexpectedin
thecaseofspousesorparentsandchildren.Iftheclaimanthassoestablishedandallotherrequirementsof
theclaimaresatisfiedheorshewillsucceedsincetheshocktohimorherwillbewithinthereasonable
contemplationofthetortfeasor.Ifsuchrelationshipisnotestablishedtheclaimwillfail.Iturntothe
questionofproximitywhicharisesinthecontextofthoseplaintiffswhosawthedisasterontelevision
eithercontemporaneouslyorinlaterrecordedtransmissionsandofthosewhoidentifiedtheirlovedones
inthetemporarymortuarysomenineormorehoursafterthedisasterhadtakenplace.Ireferonceagainto
apassageinthespeechofLordWilberforceinMcLoughlinv.O'Brian,atp.422:
space.Itis,afterall,thefactandconsequenceofthedefendant'snegligencethatmustbe
provedtohavecausedthe'nervousshock.'Experiencehasshownthattoinsistondirectand
immediatesightorhearingwouldbeimpracticalandunjustandthatunderwhatmaybe
calledthe'aftermath'doctrineonewho,fromcloseproximity,comesverysoonuponthe
sceneshouldnotbeexcluded.Inmyopinion,theresultinBensonv.Lee[1972]V.R.879was
correctandindeedinescapable.Itwasbased,soundly,upon'directperceptionofsomeofthe
eventswhichgotomakeuptheaccidentasanentireevent,andthisincludes...theimmediate
aftermath...'(p.880)"
LordWilberforceexpressedtheview,atp.422H,thata"stricttestofproximitybysightorhearingshould
beappliedbyallcourts."Later,hesaid,atp.423:
"Theshockmustcomethroughsightorhearingoftheeventorofitsimmediateaftermath.
Whethersomeequivalentofsightorhearing,e.g.throughsimultaneoustelevision,would
sufficemayhavetobeconsidered."
MyLords,althoughLordWilberforceinMcLoughlinv.O'Briandidnotclosethedoortoshockcoming
fromthesightofsimultaneoustelevisionIdonotconsiderthataclaimantwhowatchesanormal
televisionprogrammewhichdisplayseventsastheyhappensatisfiesthetestofproximity.Inthefirst
placeadefendantcouldnormallyanticipatethatinaccordancewithcurrenttelevisionbroadcasting
guidelinesshockingpicturesofpersonssufferinganddyingwouldnotbetransmitted.Inthesecondplace,
atelevisionprogrammesuchasthattransmittedfromHillsboroughinvolvescamerasatdifferent
viewpointsshowingscenesallofwhichnooneindividualwouldsee,editedpicturesandacommentary
superimposed.Idonotconsiderthatsuchaprogrammeisequivalenttoactualsightorhearingatthe
accidentoritsaftermath.IsaynothingaboutthespecialcircumstancesenvisagedbyNolanL.J.inhis
judgmentinthiscase,ante,pp.386G387A.Ifaclaimantwatchingasimultaneoustelevisionbroadcast
doesnotsatisfytherequirementsofproximityitfollowsthataclaimantwholistenstothewirelessorsees
asubsequenttelevisionrecordingfallsevenfurthershortoftherequirement.
Whatconstitutestheimmediateaftermathofanaccidentmustnecessarilydependuponthesurrounding
circumstances.Toessayanycomprehensivedefinitionwouldbeafruitlessexercise.InMcLoughlinv.
O'Briantheimmediateaftermathextendedtoatimesomewhatoveranhouraftertheaccidentandtothe
hospitalinwhichthevictimswerewaitingtobeattendedto.Itappearsthattheywereinverymuchthe
sameconditionastheywouldhavebeenhadthemotherfoundthematthesceneoftheaccident.Inthese
appealsthevisitstothemortuaryweremadenoearlierthanninehoursafterthedisasterandweremade
notforthepurposeofrescuingorgivingcomforttothevictimbutpurelyforthepurposeofidentification.
Thisseemstometobeaverydifferentsituationfromthatinwhicharelativegoeswithinashorttime
afteranaccidenttorescueorcomfortavictim.Iconsiderthatnotonlythepurposeofthevisitstothe
mortuarybutalsothetimesatwhichtheyweremadetakethemoutsidetheimmediateaftermathofthis
disaster.
Onlytwoplaintiffs,Mr.andMrs.Copoc,lostason,buttheysawthedisasterontelevisionandMr.Copoc
identifiedthebodyonthefollowingmorninghavingalreadybeeninformedthathissonwasdead.No
plaintifflostaspouse.Noneoftheotherplaintiffswholostrelativessoughttoestablishthattheyhad
relationshipsofloveandaffectionwithavictimcomparabletothatofaspouseorparent.Inanyevent
onlytwoofthemwerepresentinthegroundandtheremaindersawthescenesonsimultaneousor
recordedtelevision.Inthesecircumstancesnoneoftheplaintiffshavingsatisfiedboththetestsof
reasonableforeseeabilityandofproximityIwoulddismissalltheappeals.
LORDLOWRY
MyLords,IhaveenjoyedtheadvantageofreadingindraftthespeechesofyourLordships,allofwhom
havereachedthesameconclusion,namely,thattheseappealsshouldbedismissed.ConcurringasIdoin
thatconclusion,Idonotconsiderthatitwouldbehelpfultoaddfurtherobservationsofmyowntowhat
hasalreadybeensaidbyyourLordships.
BAILII:CopyrightPolicy|Disclaimers|PrivacyPolicy|Feedback|DonatetoBAILII
URL:http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/5.html

Alcock V Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1991) UKHL 5 (28 November 1991)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Alcock V Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1991) UKHL 5 (28 November 1991)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

10/10/2016 AlcockvChiefConstableofSouthYorkshire[1991]UKHL5(28November1991)

Potrebbero piacerti anche