Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 9 (05 March 1992)

Parents of two girls killed in the Hillsborough disaster claimed damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 for injuries suffered before death. The House of Lords upheld findings that no compensable injury occurred before the swift fatal crushing, and that fear alone cannot ground a damages claim.

Facts

Sarah and Victoria Hicks, aged 19 and 15 respectively, died in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster on 15 April 1989. Their parents brought an action as administrators of the girls’ estates claiming damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, alleging that each daughter had an accrued cause of action for injuries suffered prior to death. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire did not contest liability for the disaster but disputed the existence of compensable pre-death injuries.

Medical Evidence

Both girls died from traumatic asphyxia caused by crushing. Medical evidence accepted by the trial judge indicated that in cases of death from traumatic asphyxia caused by crushing, the victim would lose consciousness within seconds of the chest being crushed and would die within five minutes. Post-mortem reports showed no physical injuries attributable to anything other than the fatal crushing, except for some superficial bruising on Sarah which could have occurred before or after loss of consciousness.

Issues

The key issues were: (1) Whether the deceased suffered any compensable injury before death that would give rise to a cause of action surviving for the benefit of their estates; (2) Whether fear of impending death, without accompanying physical injury, could ground a claim for damages.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of Hidden J and the Court of Appeal. Lord Bridge of Harwich delivered the leading judgment.

Concurrent Findings of Fact

Lord Bridge emphasised that the House of Lords will only interfere with concurrent findings of fact where both courts below were clearly wrong. The appellants failed to demonstrate this.

Fear Alone Not Compensable

Lord Bridge stated that fear by itself, regardless of degree, is a normal human emotion for which no damages can be awarded. Those who escaped the Hillsborough crush without physical injury had no claim for the distress suffered. Consequently, fear of impending death felt by a victim before a fatal injury is inflicted cannot by itself give rise to a cause of action surviving for the estate’s benefit.

Nature of Damages

Lord Bridge acknowledged the understandable anger of bereaved relatives but noted that damages in civil negligence actions are compensatory, not punitive.

Implications

This case established important principles regarding claims under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934:

• Where death is virtually instantaneous or unconsciousness occurs within seconds of injury, there is no compensable pre-death suffering
• Fear or mental distress alone, without accompanying physical injury, cannot found a damages claim
• The House of Lords will rarely disturb concurrent findings of fact from lower courts

The decision reflects the compensatory nature of tort damages and the limitations on claims for purely emotional harm. It remains significant authority on the recoverability of damages for pre-death pain and suffering in fatal accident cases.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, holding that the appellants failed to prove that either deceased suffered any compensable injury before death.

Source: Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 9 (05 March 1992)