Alcock case summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Alcock case summary from college module...

Description

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1992): Claim failed. A stadium disaster that causes number of deaths and injury resulting Cs claiming for PI bc witnessing the incident inside, outside, through the TV and identifying their loved ones during the makeshift of mortuary in the field. D admitted negligence but denied DOC owed to all the SV that did not directly injure themselves. HOL held in respect of claims by SV: 

Liability not only depends on reasonably foreseeability but also proximity (McLoughlin).



Court will consider rs with close ties of love (parents, child, spouse), which will be presumed. However, if not C will require to prove closeness o/f.



Bystander is unlikely to satisfy proximity in rs as he is unconnected to the victims. PI of bystander would not ordinarily be foreseeable but does not mean he’s entirely excluded from claims (cases involving catastrophe occurring close to bystander). Witness of bystander of other’s suffer is not ordinary, however, if he does in certain circumstances, DOC may be owed provided a strong nerved person would have been shocked.

 

Prox in time and space, accident should have immediate aftermath. Viewing scenes through TV does not equate viewer being within sight or hearing of the event or its immediate aftermath. However, in some cases it may equate with actual hearing or seeing.



Immediate aftermath to be satisfy is dependent on the circumstances. C who suffered shock when called to identify body in the mortuary, did so when they paid visit to the mortuary at least 9 hours after the disaster. This type of C falls outside the claim as the purpose and time is given to ask them identify



body but not giving comfort. Shock must be some recognisable psychiatric or physical illness, but not



accumulation over a period of time of more gradual assaults on nervous system. Immediately involved participants of disaster is PV and need not to satisfy the proximity test as DOC is owed. Lord Oliver, witness should be distinguished from injured C.



Rescuers and innocent agents should be dealt as PV bc they’re directly involved and should easily owed a DOC due to public policy to encourage acts of rescue....