The next significant case was the decision of the House
of Lords in the following case.
The decision in McLoughlinmarked a considerable ex-
pansion of liability for psychiatric injury but their Lord-
ships assumed that it would not open the floodgates of
litigation. In the following ten years, however, there was
a growth of claims for psychiatric injury in areas such as
workplace stress (e.g. Walkerv Northumberland County
Council(1994) – see later) and against medical practi-
tioners and health authorities. The House of Lords started
to take greater account of policy considerations and
began to take a more restrictive view of the scope of
liability for psychiatric injury.Part 3Business transactions
334
careering downhill and she had reasonable cause to
believe that her children may have been in the path of
the lorry. The Court of Appeal held that it would not be
fair to draw a distinction between a mother who feared
for the safety of her children and a mother who only
feared for her own safety. The claimant would be entitled
to recover if he could show that: (a) his wife’s death was
caused by the shock occasioned by the runaway lorry;
(b) the shock resulted from what she saw or realised by
her own unaided senses; and (c) the shock was due to
a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to herself
or her children.Bourhillv Young(1942)The claimant was an Edinburgh fishwife who, after
alighting from a tram, heard the impact of a traffic
accident and later saw blood on the road. The accident
was caused by the defendant motorcyclist who was
killed. The claimant, who was eight months pregnant at
the time of the accident, suffered severe shock and later
gave birth to a stillborn child. The House of Lords held
that she was not entitled to recover damages for her
injuries. The defendant did not owe a duty of care to
the claimant because he could not have reasonably
foreseen the likelihood that she could be affected by
his negligent act. She did not witness the accident; she
was never in fear for her own physical safety nor was
there any familial relationship between herself and those
involved in the accident.Although the claimant inBourhilldid not witness the
accident, it is unlikely that she would have been success-
ful had she done so. Lord Porter took the view that car
drivers, even if careless, are entitled to expect to assume
that ‘the ordinary frequenter of the streets has sufficient
fortitude to endure such incidents as may from time to
time be expected to occur in them’ without incurring
liability for negligence.
The next important case was the decision of the
House of Lords in McLoughlinv O’Brian(1982).
injuries sustained by her husband and children. She was
also informed that one of her children had been killed.
She suffered psychiatric injury. The House of Lords held
that the claimant was entitled to recover damages. The
injury which brought on her nervous shock was caused
to a near relative and although she was not at or near the
scene of the accident she did witness the ‘immediate
aftermath’ in the hospital. The shock that she suffered
was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the de-
fendant’s negligence. The sole test of liability is reason-
able foreseeability, which should only be limited in terms
of proximity by three elements: (a) the closeness of
the relationship between the injured person and the
claimant; (b) the proximity of the claimant to the accident
in terms of place and time; and (c) proximity of commun-
ication about the accident to the claimant in terms of
seeing the accident, hearing about it or coming across
its immediate aftermath.McLoughlinv O’Brian(1982)The claimant’s husband and children were involved in a
serious accident. The claimant went to the hospital two
hours after the accident, where she saw the seriousAlcockv Chief Constable of the South
Yorkshire Police(1991)
This case arose from the Hillsborough football stadium
disaster in 1989, in which 95 spectators were crushed
to death and over 400 injured. The immediate cause of
the disaster was the decision of a senior police officer to
open an outer gate to the Leppings Lane end of the
stadium without cutting off access to pens which were
already full. Scenes from the ground were broadcast live
on television and news of the disaster was broadcast
on the radio. Claims for psychiatric injury were brought
by 16 claimants who were related to those killed. The
claimants included, for example, those present in the
ground who saw the horrific scenes unfold and were
later informed that close relatives (two brothers) had
been killed, and those who watched the scenes on tele-
vision and were later informed that relatives had died.
The Chief Constable admitted liability in negligence in
respect of those who were killed or injured but argued