Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (Jones v Wright)

For a claimant who is a secondary victim, reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric illness does not by itself establish a duty of care. The claimant must also show the requisite proximity. That inquiry requires attention to the claimant’s relationship with the primary victim, proximity in time and space to the accident or its immediate aftermath, and the means by which the shock was caused.

Liability requires a sudden assault on the senses through direct sight or hearing of the event or its immediate aftermath. Grief, anxiety, gradual realisation, or information communicated by others is insufficient. Simultaneous television may exceptionally provide the equivalent of direct perception, but broadcasts which do not show the suffering of recognisable individuals do not do so.

The claims arose from the Hillsborough disaster. The defendant admitted negligence towards those killed or physically injured. Sixteen persons who were not in the affected pens claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by their awareness of the disaster and its consequences.

Hidden J assumed causation and found for 10 claimants. The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeals against nine of those claimants and dismissed the unsuccessful claimants’ appeals. Ten claimants appealed further.

The central issue was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to secondary victims whose psychiatric illness followed televised scenes, later information, or identification of a relative’s body, rather than direct perception of injury to that person at the event or its immediate aftermath.

1. The appeals were dismissed unanimously. The orders below were affirmed, subject only to the variation concerning costs awarded against legally aided appellants.

2. The controlling issue was duty, not the existence of psychiatric illness or breach towards the primary victims. In claims by secondary victims, reasonable foreseeability is a necessary but insufficient condition. The claimant must also establish the requisite relationship of proximity: McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410.

3. The majority reasoning treated three matters as controls on liability: the class of claimant; closeness in time and space to the accident or its immediate aftermath; and the means by which shock was caused. Close ties of love and affection may be presumed for parents, spouses and analogous relationships, but other relationships require proof of comparable ties. No rigid list of qualifying relationships was adopted.

4. Psychiatric illness must result from sudden shock through sight or hearing of the event or its immediate aftermath. Mere communication of distressing news, grief, anxiety and a gradual realisation of death or injury do not satisfy that requirement. The reasoning expressed serious doubt about Hevican v Ruane [1991] 3 All ER 65 and Ravenscroft v Rederiaktiebølaget Transatlantic [1991] 3 All ER 73, insofar as recovery rested upon news of a death.

5. The simultaneous broadcasts did not show suffering by recognisable individuals. They caused understandable anxiety but were not equivalent to direct sight or hearing of the event or its immediate aftermath. Although television could exceptionally provide such direct perception, it did not do so here. Identification at a mortuary many hours later was also outside the immediate aftermath.

6. The claims therefore failed for want of the necessary proximity and, for several claimants, want of proved close ties of love and affection. The formal costs order was varied only in respect of the legally aided appellants.

• House of Lords. The consolidated appeals were dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s orders of 3 May 1991 were affirmed, except as to costs awarded against legally aided appellants.
• Court of Appeal. The court allowed the defendant’s appeals against nine of the 10 claimants who had succeeded before Hidden J, and dismissed the appeals of the six unsuccessful claimants.
• High Court (Hidden J). Judgment was given on 31 July 1990. On assumed causation, 10 of 16 claimants succeeded on duty of care and six failed.