The law adopts a restrictive approach in awarding damages for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury. In addition to the Caparo test for imposing a duty of care, the courts have laid down several obstacles which must be satisfied by claimants in order to establish liability. Firstly there must be an actual psychiatric injury, mere emotions of fear, worry, grief or sorrow are not sufficient:
This case arose from the events of the Hillsborough disaster in which 95 people were crushed to death at a football match due to the negligence of the police. The claim was made by relatives of the victims who had each suffered psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing the disaster.
Primary victims are those in the zone of physical danger. Primary victims only need to establish that physical harm was foreseeable. There is no requirement to establish that psychiatric injury was foreseeable:
Secondary victims are those not within the physical zone of danger but witnesses of horrific events. Secondary victims must demonstrate the four Alcock criteria are present in order to establish liability:
1. A close tie of love and affection
2. Witness the event with their own unaided senses
3.Proximity to the event itself or its immediate aftermath
4. Psychiatric injury must be a result of a shocking event.
1. Close tie of love and affection
This will be presumed in parent and child and between spouses but must be proved in other relationships including brother and sister.
2. Witness the event with own unaided senses
Seeing the events on television is not sufficient.
3. Proximity to the event itself or its immediate aftermath
The relatives that had visited the make shift mortuary to identify loved ones was held not to come within the immediate aftermath of the event.
4. Psychiatric injury must be caused by a shocking event.
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26 - A father's claim failed due to lack of 'shocking event' where he suffered severe depression on witnessing son's death due to medical negligence.
An exception to this is in relation to work related stress where an employer is under a duty not to cause psychiatric injury to an employee but only where the injury is foreseable:
Lord Oliver in Alcock had originally classed rescuers such as seen in Chadwick v British railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912 as primary victims for policy reasons. Rescuers should be encouraged rather than deterred. However this position was changed in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Resuers are now to be given no favourable treatment. Neither are employees:
