Case Analysis: Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

This case analysis has been written by Tanya Gupta, a student pursuing BA LLB from Ideal Institute of Management and Technology and School of Law, affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi.

INTRODUCTION

This is a landmark English tort law case related to nervous shock.

Equivalent Citation

[1992] 1 AC 310

Bench

Lord Keith of Kinkel

Lord Ackner

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Lord Lowry

DECIDED ON

28 December, 1991

Court

House of Lords

Relevant Law

Law of Torts

Concept

Negligence

Facts

On 15 April 1989, a semi-final of the F.A. Cup of a football match was arranged between two teams Liverpool and the Nottingham Forest football clubs at Hillsborough Stadium, Sheffield. On that day, the disaster occurred the South Yorkshire police force, which was responsible for crowd control at the match, allowed an excessively large number of spectators to enter the ground at the Leepings Lane end, an area reserved for Liverpool supporters. They cramped into pens 3 and 4, below the West Stand, and in the resulting crush 95 people were killed and over 400 persons were physically injured. The disaster was broadcast on live television and recordings were broadcast later. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries, as he permitted too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Sixteen separate actions were brought against him by persons none of whom were present in the area where the disaster was occurred, although four of them were elsewhere in the ground. All of them were connected in various ways with the persons, who were present in that area, being related to such persons or, in one case being a fiancé. Sixteen claims were brought against the defendant for nervous shock resulting in psychiatric injury. At trial ten of the claims were successful. The defendant appealed against the findings in nine and unsuccessful claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal found for the defendants in all of the claims. Ten appeals were made to the House of Lords.

All the plaintiffs claimed damages for nervous shock resulting in psychiatric illness which they alleged was caused by the experiences inflicted on them by the disaster. A joined action was brought by Alcock and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police.

Issues Before the Court

The issue raised before the House of Lords was to determine those who suffered psychiatric harm from seeing an event at which they were not physically harmed, nor present was sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed.

Ratio of the Case

Lord Oliver made a distinction between primary and secondary victims. A primary victim one who involved mediately or immediately as a participant and a secondary victim one who is no more than a passive and unwilling witness of injury to others. The claimants were all classed as secondary victims since they were not in the physical zone of danger.

The secondary victims must meet the following criteria:

A close tie of love and affection to primary victim
Witness the event with their own unaided senses
Proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath
The psychiatric injury must be caused by a shocking event

Decision

The House of Lords, in finding for Defendant, held that in cases of purely psychiatric damage caused by negligence, a distinction between primary and secondary victim. A primary victim one who was present as a participant in the event. A secondary victim must meet the following criteria:

A close tie of love and affection to primary victims
Witness the event with their own unaided senses
Proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath
The psychiatric injury must be caused by a shocking event

Neither Alcock nor the other claimants could meet the above following situations, therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Latest Posts

Archives