Alcock v CC S. Yorks, [1992] 1 AC 310

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Lucy’s fiancé was recently involved in a catastrophic multi-car collision that was widely covered by local news channels. At the time of the accident, Lucy was at work and learned about it from a colleague who had seen the wreckage reported on social media. Alarmed by the news, Lucy arrived at the crash scene more than an hour later, only to discover that emergency services had removed most of the debris and transported her fiancé to the hospital. Despite the vehicles being cleared, Lucy was extremely distressed by the lingering signs of the recent tragedy. In the following weeks, she developed acute post-traumatic stress disorder, attributing her condition to the shock of the incident and the fear she felt upon learning about her fiancé’s critical injuries.


Which factor is Lucy most likely to fail in establishing under the Alcock criteria in order to successfully claim psychiatric harm as a secondary victim in negligence?

Introduction

The Alcock criteria, derived from the House of Lords judgment in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310, establish the legal tests for determining whether a person who has suffered psychiatric harm as a result of witnessing a traumatic event involving another individual can claim damages in negligence. The core concept hinges on the distinction between primary and secondary victims, with secondary victims subject to stringent conditions. These principles ensure that liability for psychiatric harm is limited to circumstances where a sufficient degree of proximity exists between the claimant and the traumatic event. Specifically, the requirements are designed to assess the relationship between the claimant and the primary victim, the means by which the event was perceived, and the temporal and physical relationship to the traumatic event. The formal legal requirements are a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim, perception of the event through unaided senses, and proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath; alongside a qualifying event that is sufficiently shocking. These rules aim to prevent claims from those only peripherally affected by an incident.

Establishing the Primary/Secondary Victim Distinction

The legal framework established in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire delineates between two categories of victims: primary and secondary. A primary victim is directly involved in the event and is owed a duty of care by the defendant, provided that physical injury was foreseeable. A secondary victim, conversely, is not directly involved in the event but suffers psychiatric harm from witnessing the peril or harm of another, or its immediate aftermath. The Alcock criteria specifically relate to establishing the liability toward these secondary victims. The significance of the distinction lies in the limitations imposed on secondary victims. The law requires them to demonstrate a very close connection to the event and the primary victim. This distinction arose to prevent the opening of floodgates to litigation by a practically limitless number of potential claimants. This approach seeks a balance between allowing recovery for genuinely harmed individuals and restricting the reach of liability for psychiatric damage.

The Requirement of a Close Tie of Love and Affection

One of the most critical elements of the Alcock criteria is the need for the secondary victim to demonstrate a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim. This criterion specifies that only individuals who have a strong emotional relationship with the person directly endangered or harmed should be considered as potential claimants for psychiatric injury. The House of Lords decided that certain relationships, such as parent-child and spousal relationships, usually carry this close connection. However, it is not limited solely to these categories. Other relationships, such as siblings, might fulfill this requirement, and such a relationship should be subjected to an assessment of the particular facts. The crucial element is not the legal nature of the relationship but the actual depth of love and affection. This requirement is aimed at separating out those with genuine emotional attachment from those who merely have a casual relationship with the primary victim. It aims to exclude claims from acquaintances or members of the public who witnessed traumatic events but did not have this deep emotional connection.

Perception of the Event Through Unaided Senses

A further element within the Alcock criteria mandates that the secondary victim must have perceived the traumatic event with their own unaided senses. This condition requires the claimant to have directly witnessed the event, or its immediate aftermath, with their senses, rather than being informed of it subsequently by a third party. For instance, seeing an event unfold on live television can satisfy this requirement because it is a direct visual perception. However, hearing about an event through news reports or a phone call does not meet this test. The intention behind this requirement is to limit the scope of liability to those whose experience is direct and immediate, as opposed to those who learn about the event at a temporal and sensory remove. This ensures that the psychiatric harm must arise from the shock caused by the immediate sensory perception of the event and its immediate aftermath. This is a point of contention, as the degree of sensory experience deemed adequate is not always clear.

Proximity to the Event or Its Immediate Aftermath

The Alcock criteria also demand a demonstration of the secondary victim’s proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath. Proximity is not solely a geographical measure; it also refers to temporal closeness. This requirement aims to ensure that the claimant is not too far removed, either in time or space, from the event causing the harm. The immediate aftermath is not strictly defined and is subject to judicial interpretation on a case-by-case basis. The key is that the secondary victim must have been present either during the incident or shortly after, while the scene is substantially the same as that of the incident. This can include witnessing the injured or deceased being attended to at the immediate location, but would not usually include seeing the injured in a hospital at some point after the event. The purpose of this is to ensure that the harm is a direct result of witnessing the event or its immediate consequences, rather than learning of it at a later stage. The required level of proximity ensures a direct causal link between the traumatic event and the psychiatric harm suffered.

The Requirement of a Shocking Event

Finally, the psychiatric harm experienced by a secondary victim must have been caused by a sufficiently shocking event. This component of the Alcock criteria underscores that not all distressing events will qualify for a claim of psychiatric harm. The law requires that the event itself must be of a type that could reasonably cause psychiatric injury in a person of ordinary fortitude. A sudden and unexpected event, which is horrific or catastrophic in nature, will more likely be considered sufficiently shocking. The event must also be perceived by the claimant as something truly traumatising. The assessment of whether an event meets this requirement is an objective test; it does not rely solely on the subjective experience of the claimant. The purpose of this element is to restrict liability for minor upset or stress and to focus on situations where the events are of an objectively shocking nature and could be expected to cause more serious psychiatric harm. This criteria is considered the final threshold requirement, with all other Alcock elements satisfied.

Impact and Application of the Alcock Criteria

The Alcock criteria have had a significant impact on the legal landscape relating to claims for psychiatric harm. Their strict nature has resulted in a limitation of liability to a specific range of plaintiffs. The criteria have been applied in many subsequent cases, and the courts have worked to clarify its interpretation. The case of Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 4 All ER 769 demonstrated an exception to the Alcock criteria. Here, a father witnessed his son in a serious car crash for which the son was responsible, the father claimed psychiatric harm. The court held that a primary victim of self-inflicted injury did not owe a duty of care to their secondary victim family member to avoid causing them psychiatric harm. This decision highlights the limitations and boundaries of negligence claims. It is evident, therefore, that while Alcock established the parameters, the application of the criteria remains context-dependent. Each case is decided on its own specific facts and merits.

Conclusion

The Alcock criteria establish a specific framework for determining the liability of defendants for psychiatric harm suffered by secondary victims. These criteria have had a substantial effect on cases dealing with psychiatric harm, defining the necessary elements that must be satisfied for a successful claim. These criteria include the requirement for a close tie of love and affection between the claimant and the primary victim, direct perception of the event, proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath, and a shocking event that is capable of causing such injury. The ruling in Greatorex v Greatorex, though distinct in its facts, further clarifies the limits of liability in this area. The legal framework put forward in Alcock demonstrates that policy considerations play a significant role in the field of negligence, particularly with regard to psychiatric harm. The Alcock criteria continue to inform the jurisprudence of psychiatric harm within the tort of negligence, providing a specific set of tests for assessing the validity of such claims. The principles outlined in the Alcock decision remain a core element of legal reasoning and case-law relating to negligence and psychiatric harm.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal