Taylorson & Anor v Shieldness Produce Ltd

Recovery for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing injury to a close relative depends on sufficiently close proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath. The relevant shock must be caused by the defendant’s negligence, rather than by grief, anxiety or a developing realisation over an extended period. The aftermath may extend beyond the accident itself, but the law does not treat the entire period of hospital treatment, deterioration and death as one immediate aftermath. A court bound by Alcock must therefore reject a claim where the alleged shocking events are insufficiently immediate or are not shown by the medical evidence to have caused the psychiatric illness.

Mark Taylorson, aged 14, was fatally injured when he fell beneath a reversing vehicle owned by Shieldness Produce Ltd. His parents arrived at hospital shortly afterwards, saw aspects of his injuries and condition, and remained involved during his treatment until life support was withdrawn three days later. They claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by shock.

Kennedy J dismissed the claims. He held that the illnesses arose from an extended sequence of events, including grief at Mark’s death, rather than from the accident’s immediate aftermath. The parents appealed, relying principally on McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Jaensch v Coffey [1984] CLR 49. The central issue was whether the hospital events continuing until Mark’s death fell within the legally recognised immediate aftermath.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld Kennedy J’s dismissal of the parents’ claims. Costs were ordered not to be enforced without further order. Legal aid taxation was directed and leave to appeal was refused.

2. McCowan LJ treated McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 as recognising recovery for nervous shock caused by injury to a near relative and extending the relevant proximity principle to a person who comes very soon upon the accident’s immediate aftermath. The decisive authority was Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, which required close proximity in time and space.

3. The parents’ proposed period, extending from learning of the accident through hospital treatment until their son’s death, would make the aftermath substantially more extensive than the approach in Alcock. The Court was bound by that decision and declined to take a further step towards virtually limitless liability.

4. The medical evidence independently supported dismissal. The illnesses were attributed to the whole sequence of events and the parents’ reactions, including grief and anger, rather than to one specific shocking incident. The events relied upon were therefore insufficiently immediate and had not been shown to be causative of the illnesses.

5. Purchas LJ and Ralph Gibson LJ agreed. Ralph Gibson LJ added that the applicable limitation was based on sound reasons and should not be extended to include this case.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [1994] EWCA Civ 16: appeal dismissed unanimously.
• High Court of Justice — Kennedy J, judgment at Newcastle upon Tyne on 12 June 1992: claims for damages for psychiatric illness dismissed.