Welcome

Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912

ResourcesChadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912

Facts

  • The case arose from a railway accident in Lewisham, near the home of the claimant, Henry Chadwick, who lived approximately 200 yards from the crash site.
  • Following the accident, Mr. Chadwick voluntarily went to assist at the scene, spending the night helping rescue victims who were trapped.
  • Mr. Chadwick developed serious psychiatric harm as a result of his exposure to the traumatic events, leaving him unable to work.
  • After his subsequent unrelated death, his personal representatives brought a negligence claim against the British Railways Board (BRB), whose fault for the accident was not disputed.
  • The BRB argued they owed no duty of care to rescuers who voluntarily intervened.
  • The court had to assess whether a duty of care extended to such rescuers and whether psychiatric injury to them was a foreseeable consequence.

Issues

  1. Whether the British Railways Board owed a duty of care in negligence to Mr. Chadwick as a rescuer present at the accident scene.
  2. Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that rescuers could sustain psychiatric injury as a result of their assistance.
  3. Whether rescuers such as Mr. Chadwick should be classified as primary victims capable of claiming for psychiatric harm.

Decision

  • The court determined that the BRB owed a duty of care to Mr. Chadwick as a rescuer at the accident scene.
  • It was held that it was reasonably foreseeable that individuals would attempt to help in the aftermath of a negligent accident and could suffer injury, including psychiatric harm, from such involvement.
  • Mr. Chadwick was classified as a primary victim due to his direct and immediate involvement in the rescue, despite not being initially endangered by the accident.
  • Damages were awarded for the psychiatric harm suffered by Mr. Chadwick as a direct consequence of the rescue efforts.
  • A duty of care may extend to rescuers who voluntarily assist in situations created by a defendant’s negligence if their presence and injury are reasonably foreseeable.
  • Rescuers can be considered primary victims if their involvement is direct, immediate, and exposes them to potential harm or places them in a situation akin to physical danger.
  • Psychiatric harm suffered by rescuers is not too remote and can be compensable in negligence if it arises from foreseeable consequences of the negligent act.
  • Later case law, such as White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455, clarified that rescuers claiming for psychiatric harm must have been in actual or reasonably perceived physical danger, distinguishing it from situations such as in Chadwick.

Conclusion

Chadwick v British Railways Board affirmed that negligent parties owe a duty of care to rescuers for foreseeable psychiatric injury resulting from direct involvement at accident scenes, establishing rescuers as potential primary victims in negligence law.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.