28.03.2013 Views

Chapter 11 The Tort of Negligence - OED-update - Oxford University ...

Chapter 11 The Tort of Negligence - OED-update - Oxford University ...

Chapter 11 The Tort of Negligence - OED-update - Oxford University ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Rescuers<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> <strong>11</strong> <strong>The</strong> <strong>Tort</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Negligence</strong> 359<br />

Prior to 1999 it was understood that, in law, rescuers were automatically to be treated as<br />

primary victims and a duty <strong>of</strong> care was owed to a rescuer who suffered mental trauma as<br />

a result <strong>of</strong> helping out in an accident.<br />

Chadwick v British Rail (1967)<br />

Facts: <strong>The</strong> claimant was a volunteer rescuer at the scene <strong>of</strong> a rail disaster where 90 people<br />

died. He later suffered from a psychiatric illness as a result <strong>of</strong> the horrific nature <strong>of</strong> what he had<br />

experienced.<br />

Decision: A duty <strong>of</strong> care was owed to the claimant as it was reasonably foreseeable that<br />

volunteers would assist at the scene and suffer mental illness as a result.<br />

However, in White v Chief Constable South Yorkshire (1999) the House <strong>of</strong> Lords made it clear<br />

that a rescuer could only be classed as a primary victim if the rescuer was, or reasonably<br />

believed himself to be, in danger <strong>of</strong> physical injury. <strong>The</strong> court recognised that Chadwick,<br />

above, was correctly decided because the rescuer in that case was in physical danger from<br />

the collapse <strong>of</strong> the wreckage, but the rescuers in White were not at risk and could not claim<br />

as primary victims.<br />

White v Chief Constable <strong>of</strong> South Yorkshire (1999)<br />

Facts: As a result <strong>of</strong> the negligent failure <strong>of</strong> the police to control admission to the Hillsborough<br />

football stadium in Sheffield, numerous fans were crushed against railings and barricades. Ninetyfive<br />

people were killed and hundreds injured. <strong>The</strong> claimants were police <strong>of</strong>ficers who took part in<br />

the rescue operation and suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (a psychiatric illness) as a result<br />

<strong>of</strong> the horrific scenes they encountered. <strong>The</strong>y sued the Chief Constable <strong>of</strong> Yorkshire Police.<br />

Decision: No duty <strong>of</strong> care was owed by the Chief Constable to the claimants because<br />

the claimants were not actually at risk themselves. <strong>The</strong>y had not been exposed to danger or fear<br />

<strong>of</strong> danger.<br />

Secondary victims<br />

A secondary victim is a person who suffers a psychiatric illness as a result <strong>of</strong> witnessing an<br />

accident or its ‘immediate aftermath’. <strong>The</strong> person himself is in no danger but suffers shock<br />

as a result <strong>of</strong> either seeing another person injured, reasonably believing that another person<br />

is injured, or coming to the scene immediately afterwards. In addition, the secondary<br />

victim must have a close tie <strong>of</strong> love and affection for the victim <strong>of</strong> the accident.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!