White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (HL)

Facts

• The claim arose from the Hillsborough disaster, where ninety-five Liverpool FC supporters died and many were injured.
• Claimants were police officers present at the stadium, who suffered psychiatric damage after witnessing the traumatic events.
• The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, the employer, admitted negligence that led to the officers’ psychiatric harm.
• Legal proceedings focused on whether an employer owes a duty of care to protect employees from psychiatric harm absent risk of physical injury.
• The Court of Appeal sided with the officers, but the Chief Constable appealed to the House of Lords.
• Consideration was given to the legal framework established in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310.

Issues

1. Whether police officers who suffered psychiatric harm as rescuers, but were not exposed to physical danger, qualified as primary victims.
2. Whether rescuers should be treated as a special category exempt from the stricter criteria that apply to secondary victims for psychiatric injury.
3. Whether the established principles for primary and secondary victims, particularly from Alcock, should be modified for rescuers.
4. Whether a duty of care for psychiatric injury exists for employees who are not exposed to physical danger or a reasonable belief of such danger.

Decision

• The House of Lords ruled police officers did not qualify as primary victims, as they were not exposed to, nor reasonably believed themselves exposed to, physical danger.
• Status as a rescuer alone did not bypass the secondary victim criteria established in Alcock.
• The officers were required to meet the stricter Alcock criteria for secondary victims to recover for psychiatric injury.
• The court confirmed that no extension of duty of care applies for psychiatric harm where claimants were neither at risk of physical injury nor believed themselves to be so.
• A dissenting opinion (Lord Griffiths) argued the physical danger requirement for rescuers was unnecessarily restrictive, but the majority upheld limiting liability to avoid a flood of claims.

Legal Principles

• There is a key distinction between primary and secondary victims in psychiatric injury cases: primary victims must be exposed, or reasonably believe themselves exposed, to physical danger.
• Secondary victims must fulfill the Alcock conditions, including a close relationship to a primary victim, proximity in time and space, witnessing a shocking event’s immediate aftermath, and psychiatric harm caused by such an event.
• Status as a rescuer does not provide an automatic exception to follow the less restrictive primary victim standard.
• The need to limit the scope of liability for psychiatric injury is justified by policy considerations to avoid an unmanageable number of claims and the undue strain on public resources.

Conclusion

White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 confirmed rescuers must satisfy the same requirements as other claimants for psychiatric injury, clarifying that duty of care for psychiatric harm only arises if the claimant was exposed or reasonably believed exposed to physical danger, with no special exception for rescuers.