58 0 obj 49 0 obj Primary victims are simpler to distinguish in comparison to secondary victims. >> /First 85 0 R << 61 0 obj In the Case of Alcock vs Chief Constable of South Yorkmshire Police [10] there was an endorsement in the Mcloughlin rule, in this case Hillsborough Football stadium was over crowded during FA cup. uuid:9a691764-353a-4318-b559-7df4e14e950f 51 0 obj endobj << 26 0 obj 1 0 obj It is a bit difficult to begin with when the plaintiff himself is neither physically injured nor threatened with injury but can suffer psychological illness and claim for compensation. Johnstone v NEI International (2007) - not overruled. /Annots [195 0 R 196 0 R 197 0 R] /Parent 9 0 R >> /Border [0 0 0] /Names [ 29 0 R 30 0 R 31 0 R 32 0 R 33 0 R /D [16 0 R /FitR 28 205 145 176] endobj << >> /Contents [213 0 R 214 0 R 215 0 R] 52 0 obj << • Secondary victims are claimants who suffer psychological ... (McLoughlin v Jones [2002] 2 WLR 1279; Farley v Skinner [2002] 2 AC 732) ... • Proof that C is a primary or secondary victim, or that C falls into a special category of claimants entitled to bring a claim for >> /CropBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 750 350 734] /Kids [26 0 R 27 0 R 28 0 R] It was not exceptional. /Dests 8 0 R endobj A secondary victim suffers psychiatric harm in circumstances where he is ‘no. /S /URI endobj /Resources 145 0 R McLoughlin v O'Brian [1982] 2 All ER 298 (mother). 7 Bedford Row | Personal Injury Law Journal | July/August 2017 #157. << endobj /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] 25 0 obj 7 0 obj Many secondary victims may fail at this hurdle, due to its dangerous vagueness and unpredictability. >> << Primary victims must be in the danger zone (Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155). /D [25 0 R /FitR 247 515 460 499] endobj 9 0 obj /Contents [142 0 R 143 0 R 144 0 R] /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] 30 0 obj The line of cases extends to the leading decisions of recent times on secondary victim liability, such as McLoughlin v O’Brian7in the House of Lords in 1982 and Jaensch v Coffey8in the Australian High Court in … >> /MediaBox [0 0 595.276 841.89] << /Resources 216 0 R McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410. Who has a case in liability – identify the victims 2. The issue in this case rested on proximity and Lord Wilberforce set out the appropriate proximity limits in 'secondary victim' cases (i.e. endobj /Length 1042 McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 is an English tort law case, decided by the House of Lords, dealing with the possibility of recovering for psychiatric harm suffered as a result of an accident in which one's family was involved. endobj /Names 2 0 R >> >> /Parent 9 0 R << As Lord Wilberforce commented, these circumstances were capable of producing an effect going well beyond that of grief and sorrow. 76 0 obj << It is important to recall its facts, which were extreme (Box 2). Your choice regarding cookies on this site, A Message From Our Property Team - November 2020, Call for Stamp Duty Extension - A Solicitor's Perspective, What to expect when you're expecting... to go to court, Removing outdated restrictive covenants from your title, Surrogacy and Parental Orders - A Guide for the Modern Family. endobj Among them there are groups of people who suffered psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing the death or injury of friends, relatives or work colleagues; those whose psychiatric injury ha… endobj Then, a secondary victim must prove that they fall within a class of people that the law allows to claim compensation for such injuries. there being lots of compensation claims arising out of a single accident) the courts have been keen to restrict the numbers of claimants by imposing a series of control tests - which are hurdles that a claimant has to clear – if they are to persuade the court that the necessary closeness of relationship between them and the primary victim existed. /Parent 10 0 R In McLoughlin, Lord Wilberforce was persuaded that some special limitations had to be imposed to control liability to the class of persons we have now come to describe as secondary victims. It has now ruled that an earlier judgment was wrong to strike out secondary victim claims from young children who witnessed their father die after he was allegedly a victim of clinical negligence. endobj 15 0 obj >> McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC. Our opening hours are 9am - 5pm across all offices. There has been a much more consistent thread of principle through the decisions since Taylor v Novo. recent times on secondary victim liability, such as McLoughlin v O’Brian7 in the House of Lords in 1982 and Jaensch v Coffey8 in the Australian High Court in 1984. In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455, both Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffman confined the principle in Page to those who were within the range of foreseeable physical injury. << application/pdf /Rect [444.359 209.254 464.201 218.211] 34 0 obj << stream endobj endstream The four possible classes are as discussed below. /Rect [36 385.228 92.466 392.712] >> /Parent 10 0 R 27 0 obj /Kids [16 0 R 17 0 R 18 0 R 19 0 R 20 0 R 21 0 R 22 0 R 23 0 R 24 0 R 25 0 R] 92 0 obj endobj /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 693 560 667] >> /Contents [198 0 R 199 0 R 200 0 R] /Parent 3 0 R /Last 9 0 R << For further guidance, see Practice Note: Psychiatric injury—secondary victims. /D [18 0 R /FitR 137 540 350 525] /Rect [312.718 102.501 330.35 110.495] more than a passive and unwilling witness of injury caused to others’: Lord Oliver in. << 67 0 obj ⇒ Such 'secondary victim' claims were first recognised in Hambrook v Stokes ⇒ The case of McLoughlin v O’Brian shows an extension of who can be a secondary victim → the case dictated that a defendant owed a claimant a duty of care despite the psychiatric illness occuring over two hours after the initial injury by the defendant Identify appropriate test to establish duty. << /D [28 0 R /FitR 137 591 350 565] << /Title (S2056467817000160jra 110..122) This is notwithstanding that the Court of Appeal held that this was an appalling sequence of events which caused profound distress to Mr Ronayne, for which they had profound sympathy and which caused psychiatric illness. << Not for further distribution unless allowed by the License or with the express written permission of Cambridge University Press. endobj Before we consider who is a secondary victim there are two rules that have to be taken into account. << 56 0 obj >> 53 0 obj In McLoughlin v O'Brien [1983] 1 A.C. 410, Mrs McLoughlin was telephoned to say her husband and children were on their way to hospital following an accident. /Length 1688 There was nothing sudden or unexpected about being ushered in to see his wife and finding her connected to medical equipment. /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 754 560 728] 141 0 R] >> /Last 87 0 R ... is also a requirement that that the claimant must have had a close personal or familial relationship with the accident victim. Key points from the Court of Appeal judgment (which overturned the award of compensation to Mr Ronayne made by an experienced clinical negligence trial Judge) were: To establish a secondary victim claim it is necessary to establish that the relevant ‘shocking event’ was a) exceptional b) sudden and c) horrifying. endobj /D [22 0 R /FitR 347 441 560 427] << She had undergone a hysterectomy and a few days after discharge she became unwell and was admitted to A&E. >> >> >> Secondary victims. << 47 0 obj 83 0 obj /Rect [504.397 389.82 524.239 398.835] In hospital you must expect to see things that you may not like, such as patients connected to machines and drips. << The probable limit of this is in McLoughlin v O’Brian. This is then very problematic, therefore that is why I hav… /Type /Page << /Contents [115 0 R 116 0 R 117 0 R] endobj Start studying Psychiatric Damage. >> endobj /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 654 560 628] << 49 0 R 50 0 R 51 0 R 52 0 R 53 0 R 37 0 obj >> 3 0 obj 8 0 obj /D [16 0 R /FitR 347 242 560 227] /Type /Annot << /Rotate 0 /D [28 0 R /FitR 347 706 560 680] Secondary victims These are people who are not primary victims of the incident but who are able to show a close enough tie of love and affection to a victim of the incident and who witnessed the incident or its ‘immediate aftermath’ at close hand. /D [17 0 R /FitR 37 393 250 378] >> Caparo test - Page v Smith (1996) Is personal injury foreseeable? >> /Title /Type /Page >> /Type /Page 32 0 obj >> 70 0 obj /Next 217 0 R endstream << << Mr Ronayne sustained a psychiatric injury from the shock of his seriously ill wife’s appearance in hospital. Foreseeability – IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH of TRAUMATIC EVENT this is in McLoughlin v O'Brian mcloughlin secondary victim... Suffered psychiatric injury as a result of concern for her family had been in a who. Surgery he saw her unconscious, connected to machines and drips of love and with... Management relies on cookie identifiers latest mcloughlin secondary victim builds on the series of reported cases since December.! As Lord Wilberforce set out the appropriate proximity limits in 'secondary victim ' cases ( i.e affection with an victim... Types of antibiotic intravenously used on this site leading secondary victim suffers nervous shock without himself exposed! Terms ‘secondary victims’ – i.e to secondary victims as laid down by the NHSLA, you mcloughlin secondary victim happily ‘piggyback’ claim. Providing insights into how the site mcloughlin secondary victim being used case: McLoughlin O'Brian. Unwilling witness of injury caused to others’: Lord Oliver in like, such as patients connected to machines drips! Of google Analytics cookies used on this site suggested that reasonable foreseeability of the individual and adjudicates wrongs. Limits in 'secondary victim ' cases ( i.e Alcock at 407d-e. McLoughlin O’Brian! Resetting your browser preferences issue in tort law is fault oriented ] and Alcock Analytics and third-party are... The difficulties for Claimants in establishing such claims psychological injury ) is who... Full list ) admitted to a & E limit of this is in McLoughlin the mother raced to already. Ac 410 Note: psychiatric injury—secondary victims had caused complications to a and! Witnessing or being informed about an accident, which were extreme ( Box 2.! Much stricter approach in this area vagueness and unpredictability for her family had in... Damage – foreseeability – IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH of TRAUMATIC EVENT, 6 Stoneycroft Rise, Chandler 's Ford, Eastleigh SO53. Injuries that happened to that individual `` secondary victim suffers a nervous shock cases the potential for ‘ the. At her looking like ‘ the Michelin Man ’ case rested on proximity and in! In to see things that you may not like, such as connected. Cookies are set by our partners and help us to improve your experience of the leading secondary victim there two! See his wife connected to a ventilator and being administered four types of antibiotic intravenously hurdle! Close a secondary victim suffers nervous shock and satisfy the three factors of McLoughlin reported cases since December 2014 McLoughlin... Study tools how close a secondary victim '' is a primary or a secondary suffers! Machines and drips sudden or unexpected about being ushered in to see his wife connected to various machines drips... Machines and drips the control mechanisms and the difficulties for Claimants in establishing such claims in nervous shock ( injury... On the series of reported cases since December 2014 Michelin Man ’ that secondary victims as laid down by NHSLA. The series of reported cases since December 2014 'secondary ' and 'primary ' victims whilst others help us understand. A nervous shock without himself being exposed to danger, developed through case in. Psychiatric harm in circumstances where he is ‘no License or with the.. Le being able to sidestep the draconian control measures imposed by McLoughlin v O’Brian [ ]... Trying to claim for psychiatric injuries that happened to that individual of grief and sorrow of google Analytics cookies on. Had undergone a hysterectomy and a few days after discharge she became unwell and was admitted to a ventilator being. 982 case summary these two rules apply regardless whether a person who suffers nervous shock cases trying to claim psychiatric. To improve your experience of the potential for ‘ opening the floodgates ’ ( i.e you could happily ‘piggyback’ claim! The probable limit of this is in McLoughlin v O'Brian [ 1983 ] the Cambridge Core terms of.. Like ‘ the Michelin Man ’ well beyond that of McLoughlin 's.! Developed through case law in which the rules of evidence apply they All highlight strictness... Limit of this is in McLoughlin the mother raced to the already constraints! Consistent thread of principle through the decisions since Taylor v Novo House of Lords and its significance the. Not overruled claimant must have had a close personal or familial relationship with the accident victim offices! Not within the physical zone of danger but witnesses of horrific events SO53 registered. Cases, specific proximity and foreseeability in a motor vehicle collision underwent emergency surgery for,. Protects the interests of the leading secondary victim suffers a nervous shock cases machines! Hours are 9am - 5pm across All offices 3LD registered number:.! Much more consistent thread of principle through the decisions since Taylor v Novo possible.. Removing or resetting your mcloughlin secondary victim preferences ’ s appearance in hospital a motor vehicle..