White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] UKHL 45 (3 December 1998)

Police officers who suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after assisting victims at the Hillsborough disaster claimed damages from their employer. The House of Lords allowed the appeals, holding that the officers were secondary victims who could not recover for psychiatric injury as neither the employment relationship nor their role as helpers gave them primary victim status.

Facts

On 15 April 1989, a horrifying disaster occurred at Hillsborough Football Stadium when negligent crowd control by police resulted in the deaths of 96 spectators and injuries to hundreds more. The respondent police officers were on duty at the stadium and became involved in the aftermath, helping to carry the dead and dying, attempting resuscitation, and assisting at the mortuary. As a result of their experiences, they suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, a recognised psychiatric illness. They claimed damages in negligence against the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire.

Previous proceedings

Waller J dismissed the claims of all six plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal (Rose and Henry LJJ, Judge LJ dissenting) allowed the appeals of all except one plaintiff, holding that some officers could recover as rescuers and others on the basis of the employment relationship.

Issues

The central issues were:

• Whether the employment relationship between police officers and the Chief Constable entitled them to recover damages for psychiatric injury in circumstances where ordinary bystanders could not
• Whether police officers who assisted at the disaster scene qualified as rescuers entitled to primary victim status
• Whether the control mechanisms established in Alcock applied to limit recovery

Judgment

The House of Lords (Lord Goff dissenting) allowed the appeals and dismissed the actions.

The employment argument

The majority rejected the argument that the employment relationship gave the officers a special right to recover. Lord Hoffmann held that the liability of an employer to employees is not a separate tort with its own rules but is an aspect of the general law of negligence. The employment relationship establishes a duty of care but does not determine the circumstances in which liability for a particular type of injury will arise.

The rescue argument

Lord Steyn held that in order to recover compensation for pure psychiatric harm as a rescuer, the plaintiff must at least satisfy the threshold requirement that he objectively exposed himself to danger or reasonably believed that he was doing so. None of the police officers were at any time exposed to personal danger.

Policy considerations

Lord Hoffmann emphasised that extending liability would be unacceptable because it would offend notions of distributive justice. It would be perceived as unfair that policemen should have the right to compensation while bereaved relatives were denied recovery following Alcock.

Implications

This decision confirmed that the control mechanisms established in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire for secondary victims apply broadly, including to employees and those who assist at disaster scenes. The case established that:

• The employment relationship does not create a special category of primary victim for psychiatric injury claims
• Rescuers must have been exposed to personal danger or reasonably believed they were to qualify as primary victims
• Policy considerations and distributive justice are relevant in determining the boundaries of liability for psychiatric injury

The decision reflects judicial reluctance to extend liability for psychiatric injury beyond the established control mechanisms, emphasising that any significant reform should be left to Parliament.

Verdict: Appeals allowed. The claims of the police officers were dismissed. The House of Lords held that the officers were secondary victims who could not satisfy the control mechanisms established in Alcock, and neither the employment relationship nor their role as helpers at the disaster gave them primary victim status.

Source: White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] UKHL 45 (3 December 1998)