## Facts

- The claimants suffered psychiatric harm after witnessing or learning of traumatic events caused by the defendant's negligence.
- The case arose from the Hillsborough football stadium disaster, where several people witnessed harm to others, including family members.
- Claimants were not directly involved but alleged injury from observing the danger or consequences faced by primary victims.

## Issues

1. Whether secondary victims can recover damages for psychiatric harm in negligence.
2. What legal criteria must be met for secondary victims to successfully claim such damages.
3. How distinctions between primary and secondary victims influence the scope of liability.
4. What constitutes sufficient proximity, relationship, and directness of perception for a claim.

## Decision

- The House of Lords established that only claimants meeting strict criteria as secondary victims may recover for psychiatric harm in negligence.
- The criteria include demonstrating a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim, direct perception of the event or its immediate aftermath with unaided senses, proximity to the event, and that the event was sufficiently shocking.
- Relationships such as parent-child and spouses are presumed to meet the close tie requirement, but other relationships require specific proof.
- Perception through live television may be sufficient if direct, but reports or subsequent communications do not satisfy the requirement.
- Proximity encompasses both geographical and temporal nearness to the trauma or immediate aftermath.
- The event must be sudden, unexpected, and capable of causing psychiatric injury in a person of ordinary fortitude.

## Legal Principles

- The law distinguishes between primary victims (directly involved and foreseeably at risk of physical harm) and secondary victims (indirectly affected by perceiving harm to others).
- Secondary victims must prove a close tie of love and affection, direct perception of the event or immediate aftermath using unaided senses, sufficient proximity, and that the psychiatric harm was caused by a shocking event.
- The purpose of these criteria is to limit liability for psychiatric harm and prevent recovery by those only peripherally affected.
- Each case is assessed on its individual facts, and the limits to liability were illustrated in subsequent cases, such as Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 4 All ER 769, where a primary victim was not liable to a family member for self-inflicted injury.

## Conclusion

The decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire established a restrictive framework for secondary victims seeking damages for psychiatric harm in negligence, requiring demonstration of a close relationship, direct perception, proximity to the event, and a sufficiently shocking incident, thereby significantly limiting the class of eligible claimants.


Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 (HL)