Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] EWHC 223 (QB) (05 May 2000)

A fire officer attended an accident scene where his son had been injured through his own negligent driving. The father suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after witnessing his son's injuries. The court held that a person who inflicts injuries upon himself owes no duty of care to third parties who suffer psychiatric harm as a result of witnessing those self-inflicted injuries.

Facts

On 11 April 1996, the First Defendant was driving whilst intoxicated and caused an accident through negligent driving, injuring himself seriously. His father, the Claimant, was a Leading Fire Officer who attended the accident scene in his professional capacity. Upon discovering his injured son trapped in the vehicle, the Claimant subsequently developed severe long-term post-traumatic stress disorder. The First Defendant was convicted of driving without due care and attention, driving without insurance, and failing to provide a specimen. The Claimant sued his son (and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau as second defendant) for damages for psychiatric injury.

Issues

Primary Issue

Whether a person who inflicts injuries upon himself owes a duty of care to a third party who suffers psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing those self-inflicted injuries.

Secondary Issues

Whether the Claimant’s status as a rescuer created a special category entitling him to recover damages for psychiatric injury, and whether his dual status as both rescuer and close relative gave rise to a duty of care.

Judgment

Cazalet J answered all three preliminary questions of law against the Claimant, holding that no duty of care existed.

Rescuer Status

Following the majority decision in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, rescuers no longer occupy a special category for claims of pure psychiatric injury. A rescuer seeking to recover such damages must satisfy the threshold requirement that he objectively exposed himself to danger or reasonably believed he was doing so. Since the Claimant was never in physical danger nor in fear of such danger, his claim as rescuer failed.

Secondary Victim Requirements

The court found that the Claimant met all three Alcock control mechanisms as a secondary victim: close ties of love and affection existed (father and son); he was present at the immediate aftermath; and his psychiatric injury was caused by direct perception of the accident’s aftermath.

Self-Inflicted Injury Principle

However, the court held that policy considerations militated strongly against imposing a duty of care where the injuries were self-inflicted. The court considered that imposing such a duty would restrict a person’s right of self-determination in a manner inconsistent with the legal system. The court noted that since claims for psychiatric illness by secondary victims require close family ties, such claims would necessarily involve litigation between close relatives, which could be productive of acute family strife.

Implications

This case establishes that a primary victim of self-inflicted injuries owes no duty of care to secondary victims who suffer psychiatric harm as a result of witnessing those injuries. The decision has significant implications for claims arising from accidents caused by the victim’s own negligence, suicides, and other forms of self-harm witnessed by family members. The court emphasised that extension of liability in this area should be left to Parliament rather than developed incrementally by the courts. The Law Commission had recommended legislative reform in this area, though distinguishing between negligent and deliberate self-harm.

Verdict: The court answered all three preliminary questions against the Claimant: a primary victim does not owe a duty of care to a third party where his self-inflicted injuries cause that third party psychiatric injury. The First Defendant owed no duty of care to the Claimant not to harm himself or not to cause him psychiatric injury through exposure to the sight of the First Defendant's self-inflicted injuries.

Source: Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] EWHC 223 (QB) (05 May 2000)