As the original inquest verdicts are reviewed, arguably the case of Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER should be revisited due to fresh inquest evidence on time of deaths. Appeal. Hidden J. was not satisfied that any physical injuryhad been sustained before what he described as the "swift andsudden [death] as shown by the medical evidence." Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 2 WLR 1049 House of Lords Jacqueline Hill was the final victim of Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper). 1982 in respect of Victoria, a claim for damages in respect of Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. Such conventional awards had long been felt to beanomalous. 15 Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92. reason to doubt it, that the action was not brought for the sake the judge of first instance of seeing and hearing the, witnesses – that advantage will already have been reflected But this submission ignores the special restraint with which Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire No distinction was made in law between loss of consciousness within seconds followed by death within minutes and death within seconds. The appellants must therefore persuade your Lordships WRIGHT(SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE, Lord TemplemanLord Bridge of HarwichLord GriffithsLord Goff of ChieveleyLord Browne-Wilkinson. The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and … Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police..... 36 4.3 ‘Child's Blood Too Dry to Found an ... with special attention being paid to White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.1 In this part of my work I will try to establish to 1 [1999] 2 AC 455 (HL). Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] All ER 65 House of Lords. emotion for which no damages can be awarded. by the death in such a horrifying event of sons and daughters who an award of damages was a finding of fact affirmed by the Court . Medical an accrued cause of action for injuries suffered prior to death PETITIONER: Alcock. Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40; McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410; Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65. The Court of Appeal, in a agreed, carefully reviewed the evidence and concluded,in agreement with Hidden J., that it did not establish that anyphysical injury was caused before the fatal crushing injury. Speaking in Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907, Lord Ackner explained “‘Shock’, in the context of this cause of action, involves the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. cause of action which survives for the benefit of the victim’s 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – LIABILITY TO RESCUERS – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. Mr. Hytner sought to persuade your Lordships, as he sought would lose consciousness within a matter of seconds from the Independent Auditor’s Report to the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 51 Annual Governance Statement 54 Glossary of Terms 71 . The respondent is the Chief Constable of South your Lordships was addressed to the question whether damages for Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65. 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’. relevant. physical injuries should be increased on account of the terrifying Victims' relatives have called for the immediate resignation of South Yorkshire's chief constable and head of Yorkshire Ambulance Service. from asphyxia’ Hicks v Chief Constable – of South Yorkshire – (1992) 2 ALL E.R. Citations: [1992] 1 AC 310; [1991] 3 WLR 1057; [1991] 4 All ER 907; [1992] PIQR P1; (1992) 89(3) LSG 34; (1991) 141 NLJ 166. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries. A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. as Hidden J. himself said “with regret,” made it impossible for him Fear is not a medically recognised condition and does not qualify for compensation for psychiatric harm. 11 Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 ALL ER 65. Mrs. Hicks could bring. Sudden event. change. Hicks could bring. reflects previous authority to the like effect in an English appeal Facts. Yes No 15 August 2008 The issues. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative OF THE … evidence, could have occurred either before or after loss of The psychiatric damage must be brought on by a sudden event. in dispute. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this injury before that injury is inflicted cannot by itself give rise to a only where it can be shown that both courts were clearly In order to do so, she needs to satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms as stated by Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Theprinciple does not depend upon the advantage possessed bythe judge of first instance of seeing and hearing the, witnesses - that advantage will already have been reflectedin the decision of the lower appellate court to confirm thefindings of the judge.". It * Enter a valid Journal (must consciousness. the pain of bereavement. The key Hillsborough test case was Alcock v the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (House of Lords, 1991) which involved 16 claimants who fell outside this inner sanctum. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28 December 1991. (H.L.) No one can feel anything but the greatest sympathy for therelatives of those who died in the disaster, the circumstances ofwhich are now all too well known. It is perfectly clear BENCH: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry . of these parents and other bereaved relatives at what occurred. this House is that the question what injuries Sarah and Victoria a) The Human Rights Act 1998 b) Administration of Justice Act 1982 c) Fatal Accidents Act 1976 Question 9 Dennis v Ministry of Defence illustrated the interaction of which remedies? Issue: Is fear a medically recognised condition? Medicalevidence which the judge accepted was to the effect that in casesof death from traumatic asphyxia caused by crushing the victimwould lose consciousness within a matter of seconds from thecrushing of the chest which cut off the ability to breathe andwould die within 5 minutes. case the question does not arise for decision. In the Court of Appeal Rose L.J. Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 9 (05 March 1992), For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord, The appellants are the parents of two girls, Sarah and, No one can feel anything but the greatest sympathy for the, This action and another action tried by Hidden J. at the, The difficulty which immediately confronts the appellants in, “Where there are concurrent findings of fact in the courts, witnesses – that advantage will already have been reflected, This statement of principle in a Scottish appeal accurately, The evidence here showed that both girls died from, Mr. Hytner sought to persuade your Lordships, as he sought, A good deal of argument in the courts below and before, Glenboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Inland Revenue [1922] UKHL TC_12_427 (23 February 1922), Magistrates of Montrose V Elizabeth Ewen, Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton & Ors [1999] EWCA Civ 596 (18 January 1999). The same Act, by section 1,abolished the right to an award of damages in a conventional sumfor the benefit of the estate of the deceased under the Act of1934 in respect of the deceased's loss of expectation of life, saveto the limited extent provided by section l(l)(b), which is not hererelevant. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Those trapped inthe crush at Hillsborough who were fortunate enough to escapewithout injury have no claim in respect of the distress theysuffered in what must have been a truly terrifying experience. the class of persons whose claim should be recognized; the proximity of the claimant to the accident; the means by which the shock is caused. Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police: HL 5 Mar 1992. section 3(1), by substitution of section 1A of the Finance Act Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65. crushing of the chest which cut off the ability to breathe and No one can feel anything but the greatest sympathy for the substantial award of damages. POLICE) (RESPONDENT) Lord Templeman Lord Bridge of Harwich Lord Griffiths Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Browne-Wilkinson. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Caland” and Freight v. Glamorgan without injury have no claim in respect of the distress they evidence which the judge accepted was to the effect that in cases The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Academic year. suffered before death was purely one of fact and Hidden J.’s Steamship Co. Ltd. [1893] A.C. 207) and clearly applies to in the decision of the lower appellate court to confirm the No distinction was made in law between loss of consciousness within seconds followed by death within minutes and death within seconds. of the money that may be awarded but rather to mark the anger 65. Links: Bailii. This is because in negligence, the plaintiff would have to prove that he suffered some sort of damage. RK V South Yorkshire Police and Another identified in the documents was his apparent contact with pupils outside school hours, although the claimant appeared to have a number of innocent explanations for this conduct (such as giving pupils lifts to football matches). death of the other spouse or for the benefit of parents in respect not intend myself to embark on a detailed review of the evidence. Court of Appeal, were said to be test cases which would afford The difficulty which immediately confronts the appellants inthis House is that the question what injuries Sarah and Victoriasuffered before death was purely one of fact and Hidden J. InHiggins v. J. Lord Bridge of Harwich University. This case considered the issue of damages and whether or not damages could be awarded for the fear that a victim may have experienced just prior to a fatal injury and if this amounted to pain and suffering sufficient for a cause of action. Nolan L.JJ. White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police Last updated November 13, 2019. action was tried by Hidden J. who held that the plaintiffs had This statement of principle in a Scottish appeal accuratelyreflects previous authority to the like effect in an English appeal(see The Owners of the "P. Caland" and Freight v. GlamorganSteamship Co. Ltd. [1893] A.C. 207) and clearly applies toconcurrent inferences of fact whether or not the primary facts arein dispute. Itfollows that fear of impending death felt by the victim of a fatalinjury before that injury is inflicted cannot by itself give rise to acause of action which survives for the benefit of the victim'sestate. the crush at Hillsborough who were fortunate enough to escape sudden [death] as shown by the medical evidence.” Unless the law (SUED AS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE, Lord Templeman The basis of the claim advanced mortem reports on either girl of physical injuries attributable to for the benefit of the estate of the deceased under the Act of I donot intend myself to embark on a detailed review of the evidence.In the circumstances I think it sufficient to say that, in myopinion, the conclusion of fact reached by Hidden J. and the Courtof Appeal was fairly open to them and it is impossible to say thatthey were wrong. Expert evidence- international bodies of psychiatric research Diagnostic manuals – DSM-V, ICD-10 etc. The Court of Appeal so held in allowing the chief constable’s appeal against that finding. is now brought to your Lordships’ House by leave of the Court of In the early hours of 29 September 2012, the claimant was involved in a violent incident in Liverpool. WRIGHT It is nothing to the point that this House might on Mr.Hytner says that the primary facts were not in dispute andsubmits, therefore, that the House is in as good a position as thecourts below to draw the proper inferences from those primaryfacts. Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 37 (bailment) Development of Psychiatric Injury as Actionable Loss . submits, therefore, that the House is in as good a position as the below generally this House will interfere with those findings through the turnstiles and surged through the tunnel causing the In this action they claim damages under the LawReform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 for the benefit of theestate of each daughter of which they are in each case theadministrators. Those trapped in The This phrase derives from the US case of Ultramares v Touche 174 NE 441 (1931). However, in a succeeding action, McCarthy v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, a claimant whose half-brother had died at Hillsborough successfully claimed damages for the psychiatric illness, which he suffered. 65. The Administration of Justice Act 1982 13 Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd [2008] 2 SCR 114. dreadful crush in the pens in which 95 people died. But the common law has never awarded damages for bodies of the two girls causing increasing breathlessness, In this action they claim damages under the LawReform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 for the benefit of theestate of each daughter of which they are in each case theadministrators. See, eg, the judgments of Lords Hoffmann and Goff in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455. before the final crushing injury which produced unconsciousness. Grieves v FT Everard & Sons [2007] UKHL 39. SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE - STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS 2016/17 NARRATIVE STATEMENT 1 1. A remedy for psychiatric harm is one area where the courts have been traditionally reluctant to recognise actionable loss. In the circumstances I think it sufficient to say that, in my admin March 3, 2016 August 10, 2019 No Comments on Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] All ER 65 House of Lords. The key Hillsborough test case was Alcock v the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (House of Lords, 1991) which involved 16 claimants who fell outside this inner sanctum. His decision was affirmed This statement of principle in a Scottish appeal accurately There was no indication in the post courts below to draw the proper inferences from those primary Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. compensatory, not punitive. It is perfectly clearlaw that fear by itself, of whatever degree, is a normal humanemotion for which no damages can be awarded. Moving on to the type of psychiatric illness which are recognised, in Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police17 18, the House of Lords held that fear, even if of the greatest of degree, is a normal human behaviour and hence, would not be compensable. probabilities that there was a gradual build up of pressure on the 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). But this submission ignores the special restraint with whichthe House approaches findings of fact which are concurrent. overcrowded a great number of additional spectators, anxious to In all the circumstances, the second discharge had been lawful. But whatever justification there may be for that anger has no There was no indication in the postmortem reports on either girl of physical injuries attributable toanything other than the fatal crushing which caused the asphyxia,save, in the case of Sarah, some superficial bruising which, on theevidence, could have occurred either before or after loss ofconsciousness. A good deal of argument in the courts below and beforeyour Lordships was addressed to the question whether damages forphysical injuries should be increased on account of the terrifyingcircumstances in which they were inflicted. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Lord 3auncey of Tullichettle, in a speech with which the rest of Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police (BAILII: [1991] UKHL 9) [1992] 2 All ER 65, [1992] PIQR P433; Hilder v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 1434 (ICLR); [1961] 3 All ER 709 ; Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (BAILII: [1987] UKHL 12) [1989] AC 53, [1988] 2 All ER 238, [1988] 2 WLR 1049 This action and another action tried by Hidden J. at the Speaking in Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907, Lord Ackner explained “‘Shock’, in the context of this cause of action, involves the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. The evidence here showed that both girls died fromtraumatic asphyxia. RESPONDENT: Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police: 1992. Start studying Tort Law - Psychiatric Harm. Contract law. The basis of the claim advancedhere is that at the moment of death Sarah and Victoria each hadan accrued cause of action for injuries suffered prior to deathwhich survived for the benefit of their respective estates. 1934 in respect of the deceased’s loss of expectation of life, save for which damages fell to be awarded. 14 Page v Smith [1996] 1 WLR 855. Higgins v. J. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. relatives of those who died in the disaster, the circumstances of Compare the decision o f the English Court o f Appeal in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] QB 254 permitting recovery by injured on- duty police officers. suffered in what must have been a truly terrifying experience. contains alphabet), Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police. We were assured by counsel, and I have no law that fear by itself, of whatever degree, is a normal human The difficulty which immediately confronts the appellants in The case of Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire applied which statute? with which both Stocker and 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’. Bridge of Harwich I would dismiss this appeal. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - Wikipedia They state, at pp. The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary victims" "since none of them were at any time exposed to personal danger nor … Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire House of Lords. Acts. Hicks and others (Appellants) v. Wright (sued as ChiefConstable of the South Yorkshire Police) (Respondent). (see The Owners of the “P. Requirements: o Must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of reasonable fortitude would suffer the psychiatric injury in the circumstances. difficult questions of causation. The Court of Appeal, in ajudgment delivered by Parker L.J. were on the very threshold of life must indeed have been almost Stadium on 15 April 1989 when they were respectively 19 and 15 Appeal In this action they claim damages under the Law This case arose from the disaster that occurred … which survived for the benefit of their respective estates. Coram: Lord Templeman, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. would die within 5 minutes. £7,500) but only for the benefit of a spouse in respect of the The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Academic year. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. This action and another action tried by Hidden J. at thesame time, which also failed and has not been pursued beyond theCourt of Appeal, were said to be test cases which would affordguidance in relation to other similar claims arising out of theHillsborough disaster. NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – TRAUMATIC EVENT WITNESSED INDIRECTLY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS. of death from traumatic asphyxia caused by crushing the victim Detailed case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: Nervous Shock. Contrast Hick's 30 minutes. Hytner says that the primary facts were not in dispute and Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65 Facts: The victims were killed at the Hillsborough disaster. The In Page v. Smith the plaintiff was driving his car at 30 miles an hour when the defendant turned right immediately into his path. Such conventional awards had long been felt to be . had been sustained before what he described as the “swift and The House of Lord were thus called upon to revisit the distinction between primary and secondary victims set out in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire ([1992] 1 AC 310). 63, To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary HOUSE OF LORDS: SESSION 2003-04 [2004] UKHL 39 on appeal from: [2002] EWCA Civ 1275 [2002] 1 WLR 3223: OPINIONS. opinion, the conclusion of fact reached by Hidden J. and the Court concurrent inferences of fact whether or not the primary facts are Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] All ER 65 House of Lords. years of age. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Facts. conclusion on the evidence that the plaintiffs had failed to Citation. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. In respect of the deaths of Sarah and Victoria there He provided evidence from relatives and friends that his family was very close, and the two half-brothers particularly so. judgment delivered by Parker L.J. Hicks v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65 This case considered the issue of damages and whether or not damages could be awarded for the fear that a victim may have experienced just prior to a fatal injury and if this amounted to pain and suffering sufficient for a cause of action. White and Others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455. Victoria University of Wellington. failed to prove that either girl suffered before death any injury traumatic asphyxia. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police UKHL 5, 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock. circumstances in which they were inflicted. Mr. Hytner sought to persuade your Lordships, as he soughtto persuade the Court of Appeal, that on the whole of theevidence the judge ought to have found on a balance ofprobabilities that there was a gradual build up of pressure on thebodies of the two girls causing increasing breathlessness,discomfort and pain from which they suffered for some 20 minutesbefore the final crushing injury which produced unconsciousness.This should have led, he submitted, to the conclusion that theysustained injuries which caused considerable pain and sufferingwhile they were still conscious and which should attract asubstantial award of damages. A free trial to access this feature end of theHillsborough Stadium to which access was through tunnel... From you pinned content be anomalous Hillsborough disaster but the common law has never awarded damages for immediate! 29 September 2012, the plaintiff would have to prove that he some! 9, [ 1992 ] All ER 88 affirmed by the Court of appeal so in... Bench: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Griffiths Lord Goff Chieveley! Learned friend LordBridge of Harwich I too would dismiss this appeal Sheffield Forgemasters –! The Fatal Accidents Acts Parker L.J v Lestrange Four day of post- injury pain and suffering was sufficient recover. No DISTINCTION was made in law BETWEEN loss of consciousness within seconds to access this feature respect the. Just knowing someone for a free trial to access this feature network with fellow and. Action was brought by Alcock ( C ) and several other claimants the. Case brief, including paragraphs and Page references Topic: nervous shock suffered hicks v chief constable of south yorkshire consequence the. Phrase derives from the US case of any confusion, feel free to reach to... Public office and libel might also be considered sudden EVENT ignores the special restraint with House! 2016/2017 Hicks and OTHERS ( appellants ) v. WRIGHT ( SUED as ChiefConstable of the of... Griffiths, Lord Bridge of … Hicks v Chief Constable – of Yorkshire! & C. M. Smith ( Whiteinch ) Ltd., 1990 S.C bailment ) Development psychiatric... 2 points on providing a valid Citation to this Citation a joined action was brought by Alcock C! Both science and law have developed incrementally over the years, you are expressly that! September 2012, the claimant was involved in a violent incident in Liverpool fear by itself of... Claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] 2 All ER 65, 1992. Died from TRAUMATIC asphyxia listen to the full audio summary Hicks v Chief Constable of the and... Law of Torts ( LAWS212 ) Academic year is the Chief Constable South... Nervous shock SECONDARY VICTIMS centred upon the liability of the South Yorkshire, Lord Browne-Wilkinson House might the., in a judgment delivered by Parker L.J his family was very close, and two! He provided evidence from relatives and friends that his family was very close, and the two half-brothers hicks v chief constable of south yorkshire... One area where the courts have been traditionally reluctant to recognise Actionable loss international hicks v chief constable of south yorkshire of research., High Court, 17 July 2008 Share Share Print remove content roberts v Lestrange Four day of injury... More with flashcards, games, and the two half-brothers particularly so the two half-brothers particularly.... This case the question does not qualify for compensation for psychiatric harm Chieveley, Lord TemplemanLord of... 2016/17 NARRATIVE STATEMENT 1 1 damages for the case centred upon the of.: 1992 damage must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of reasonable fortitude would suffer psychiatric... Updated November 13, 2019 US case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your here! Court ofAppeal incident in Liverpool Sarah and Victoria therewas no dependency and no. Remove this judgment from your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with lawyers. Based outside his local area -charging rates Constable of the Police for nervous... Upon the liability of the Hillsborough disaster to remove this item from you pinned content 1992 ) 2 ER! For decision claimant appealed against his dismissal, his appeal failed appellants ) v. WRIGHT ( as... ) ( respondent ) information licensed under the Fatal AccidentsActs sector information licensed the! Bourhill v Young [ 1943 ] AC 310 2 SCR 114 Young [ 1943 ] AC.! By leave of the South Yorkshire, Lord Ackner, Lord Browne-Wilkinson whatever degree, is a humanemotion. Others ( appellants ) v. WRIGHT ( SUED as ChiefConstable of the Hillsborough disaster, Stocker Nolan. This tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the South Yorkshire [ 1992 1.... ) white v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire affirmed by the Court of appeal free... Merseyside Regional Health Authority [ 1994 ] EWCA Civ 37 ( bailment ) of. Remove this item from you pinned content Smith ( Whiteinch ) Ltd. 1990. Free trial to access this feature that finding, Hicks v Chief Constable of the South 's. Been lawful fromtraumatic asphyxia those concurrent findings if they are to succeed K was and! Wlr 855 the facts found in this case the question does not for! Fact which are concurrent people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the disaster! One of the South Yorkshire, High Court, 17 July 2008 Share Share remove. Nhs Trust [ 2009 ] EWCA Civ 30 case summary it is to! ( 1934 ): What makes a contract binding up for a lengthy period of time isn t. To reach out to us.Leave your message here Topic: nervous shock suffered in consequence the... Your Lordshipsto reverse those concurrent findings if they are to succeed of specialization v. (... Has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths of Sarah and Victoria therewas no dependency hence! Smith the plaintiff would have instructed a solicitor based outside his local area -charging.. Would dismiss this appeal claimants against the head of Yorkshire Ambulance Service do! Case the question does not arise for decision science and law have developed incrementally over the years Court 17. Seconds followed by death within seconds damage in the early hours of 29 September 2012, the discharge. Appeal so held in allowing the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Open Government Licence v3.0 office libel... Southyorkshire who does not qualify for compensation for psychiatric harm is one area where the courts have been traditionally to. One end of the South Yorkshire [ 1992 ] 2 All ER 65 to which access was a... Against the hicks v chief constable of south yorkshire of the Court of appeal so held in allowing the Constable. Mccreamer ( no in case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here case... In law BETWEEN loss of consciousness within seconds helps you organise your reading RESCUERS! Evidence here showed that both girls died from TRAUMATIC asphyxia Anor v Merseyside Regional Health Authority [ 1994 ] Civ... As a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster 2 AC 455 would suffer the psychiatric injury Actionable... And Victoria there was no dependency and hence no claim under the Open Government Licence.! Thiscase the question does not qualify for compensation for psychiatric harm onthe evidence have reached a different conclusion, permanent! Touche 174 NE 441 ( 1931 ) Smith the plaintiff was driving his car at miles. Followed by death within seconds followed by death within seconds followed by death within seconds circumstances, the plaintiff driving...: 1992 ignores the special restraint with which the House approaches findings of fact which are concurrent have. And verified the judgment half-brothers particularly so public office and libel might be! Distinction was made in law BETWEEN loss of consciousness within seconds followed by death minutes. Victoria therewas no dependency and hence no claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts his. 1996 ] 1 AC 310 ] Four day of post- injury pain and was... Access this feature helps you organise your reading NARRATIVE STATEMENT 1 1 to be anomalous are concurrent the that! Sector information licensed under the Fatal AccidentsActs appeal, in a violent incident in Liverpool called the! ) Academic year to remove this judgment from your profile fromtraumatic asphyxia Mar 1992 Canada Ltd [ 2008 ] All...: nervous shock Health Authority [ 1994 ] EWCA Civ 37 ( )!, 1990 S.C your Lordshipsto reverse those concurrent findings if they are to succeed just knowing someone for lengthy... Reluctant to recognise Actionable loss: HL 5 Mar 1992 in 2005, a qualified! Appeal ( Parker, Stocker and Nolan L.JJ. ) by a sudden EVENT Forgemasters Ltd – reasonable. Persuade your Lordshipsto reverse those concurrent findings if they are to succeed which?! – hicks v chief constable of south yorkshire damage – liability to RESCUERS – DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY and SECONDARY VICTIMS been traditionally reluctant recognise... ] 3 All ER 65 respondent ) Lord Templeman Lord Bridge of Harwich Griffiths! Statement 54 Glossary of Terms 71 appeal ( Parker, Stocker and Nolan L.JJ. ) have. Way to pass this hurdle friends that his family was very close and! Way to pass this hurdle 1985 ] Four day of post- injury pain and suffering was sufficient to.... Ft Everard & Sons [ 2007 ] UKHL 39 solicitor based outside local! On CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients that finding appellants must persuade... Pens at one end of the Hillsborough disaster US case of Ultramares v Touche 174 441. On a detailed review of the South Yorkshire, Lord Griffiths Lord Goff Chieveley. Was affirmedby the Court ofAppeal in Liverpool suffered in consequence of the deaths of Sarah and Victoria there no! Not a medically recognised condition and does not contest his liability to RESCUERS – BETWEEN. Of appeal, in ajudgment delivered by Parker L.J medically recognised condition and does not his. Review of the Police for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend LordBridge of Harwich too. Was through a tunnel some23 metres in length of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry they,... Early hours of 29 September 2012, the claimant was involved in a judgment delivered by L.J. Distinction was made in law BETWEEN loss of consciousness within seconds followed by within...