## Facts

- The case arose from the Hillsborough stadium disaster, where ninety-six Liverpool supporters died as a result of police negligence.
- Relatives and friends of the deceased brought claims against the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police for psychiatric harm resulting from witnessing the tragedy, either at the stadium or via live television.
- Claimants included brothers and a brother-in-law present at the event, and others who saw the incident or its aftermath on TV.
- The main legal question was whether a duty of care extended to individuals suffering psychiatric injury from witnessing an event, especially those not at physical risk.
- The police argued that a duty should only arise when physical injury was foreseeable, while claimants maintained that reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric harm was sufficient.

## Issues

1. Whether a duty of care in negligence arises for psychiatric injury suffered by persons witnessing traumatic events from a distance, including via television.
2. What criteria determine the recovery of damages for psychiatric harm by secondary victims not at physical risk in such cases.
3. Whether the foreseeability of psychiatric injury alone is sufficient to establish liability, or if additional restrictions apply.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed all the claims by the secondary victims.
- The court distinguished between primary victims (those physically at risk) and secondary victims (witnesses not at risk).
- For secondary victims to recover for psychiatric injury, they must demonstrate:
  - A close tie of love and affection with a primary victim (presumed for spouses and parent/child; evidence required otherwise).
  - Proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath.
  - Direct perception of the shocking event (by sight or hearing) as a sudden event, not via being told or gradual realization.
- The claimants failed, as those present lacked sufficiently close relationships, and those watching on television did not satisfy proximity and direct perception requirements.
- The Court specified that psychiatric illnesses caused by gradual grief or information, as opposed to sudden shock, are not compensable.

## Legal Principles

- The duty of care for psychiatric injury is subject to stricter requirements than for physical injury, especially for secondary victims.
- Criteria for secondary victim recovery include close ties with a primary victim, proximity in time and space to the event, and direct perception of the event by one's own unaided senses.
- Psychiatric harm must result from a sudden and shocking event.
- Watching traumatic events on television generally does not meet the requirements for proximity or direct perception.
- The class of claimants is intentionally restricted to prevent limitless liability, as reaffirmed in subsequent case law (_Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust v Ronayne_ [2015] EWCA Civ 588).
- Rescuers are subject to the same tests as other secondary victims unless they were themselves exposed to physical risk (_White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire_ [1999] 2 AC 455).

## Conclusion

_Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police_ established stringent criteria for secondary victims claiming for psychiatric harm, requiring close ties, proximity, and direct perception, and has become the leading authority limiting the scope of liability for psychiatric injury in English negligence law, balancing the provision of remedies with practical policy considerations.


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