Chadwick v. British Railways Board
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| English Tort law |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Negligence |
| Duty of care |
| Bolam Test |
| Breach of duty |
| Causation |
| Breaking the chain |
| Acts of the claimant |
| Remoteness |
| Professional negligence |
| Psychiatric harm |
| Loss of chance |
| Loss of right |
| Res ipsa loquitur |
| Eggshell skull |
| Defences to negligence |
| Trespass to property |
| Occupiers' liability |
| Defamation |
| Strict liability |
| Vicarious liability |
| Rylands v. Fletcher |
| Nuisance |
| Other areas of the common law |
| Contract law · Property law |
| Wills and trusts |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
Chadwick v. British Railways Board [1967] 2 All ER 945 was an English High Court (Queen's Bench Division) judgment, dealing with the posibility of recovering psychiatric harm suffered by helpers who have witnessed and assisted at an accident. The Court ruled that such helpers, as "primary victims" of the accident, could recover the damage caused by nervous shock in the same way as personal injury, unlike "secondary victims", who have merely witnessed the accident without being directly involved in it.[1]
Contents |
[edit] Facts
The plaintiff, Mr Chadwick, was an ordinary man, who had suffered some psychological disorders in his youth. Having assisted at a site of a terrible train accident, he had become ill with anxiety disorder and required hospital treatment. His personal representatives had sued the British railways Board, which had negligently caused the accident.
[edit] Judgment
The Court found in favour of the plaintiff for the following reasons:
- It was reasonably foreseeable in the event of such an accident as had occurred that someone other than defendants’ servants might try to rescue passengers and might suffer injury in the process; accordingly defendants owed a duty of care towards Mr Chadwick.
- Injury by shock to a rescuer, physically unhurt, was reasonably foreseeable, and the fact that the risk run by a rescuer was not exactly the same as that run by a passenger did not deprive the rescuer of his remedy.
- Damages were recoverable for injury by shock notwithstanding that the shock was not caused by the injured person’s fear for his own safety or for the safety of his children;
- As a man who had lived a normal busy life in the community with no mental illness for 16 years, there was nothing in Mr Chadwick’s personality to put him outside the ambit of defendants’ contemplation so as to render the damage suffered by him too remote.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ The terminology of "primary" and "secondary" victim was introduced in a later Court of Appeal case of Page v. Smith
