Proximity CASES
In English negligence law, proximity is the necessary closeness between claimant and defendant—relational, temporal, spatial, or causal—used to justify imposing a duty of care alongside foreseeability and the “fair, just and reasonable” stage.
definition and principles
Proximity is not mere physical nearness. It focuses on the relationship’s substance (for example, direct dealings, reliance, knowledge, control, vulnerability). It is often established through assumption of responsibility or specific features binding the parties. The inquiry is context-sensitive and distinct from remoteness and causation.
common examples
- Negligent misstatement: proximity via assumption of responsibility and reasonable reliance (adviser ↔ advisee).
- Secondary victims (psychiatric injury): proximity in time and space to the accident/event, plus ties of love and affection.
- Public authority omissions / third-party acts: proximity where there is control, creation of danger, or a specific undertaking.
- Product liability / dangerous acts: proximate “neighbour” relationship where harm to the claimant class is directly contemplated.
legal implications
- Operates with foreseeability and policy to determine whether a duty arises in new or marginal categories.
- Disclaimers and disclaimers-by-conduct may negate proximity by rebutting reliance or responsibility.
- Do not conflate with remoteness of damage or the standard of care—proximity is a duty gateway.
practical importance
Plead concrete proximity factors (reliance, knowledge of a defined class, control, vulnerability, undertakings) rather than abstract labels; this sharpens duty analysis and case selection.
See also: Duty of care; Caparo test; Assumption of responsibility; Psychiatric injury; Pure economic loss; Omissions; Public authorities; Third-party acts.
Home » Proximity
A daughter witnessed her mother's sudden death at home, the result of an injury sustained in a work accident three weeks prior. Her claim for psychiatric injury as a secondary victim failed because she lacked proximity to the original accident. Facts The claimant’s mother, Mrs Taylor, was injured in an accident at her workplace on 19th August 2008, when a stack of racking boards fell on her. The defendant, her employer, admitted liability for this accident. Mrs Taylor sustained injuries to her head and foot but was discharged from hospital and appeared to be recovering. However, three weeks later, on
The mother of a child murdered by a psychiatric patient sued the responsible health authority for negligence. The court held no duty of care was owed as there was insufficient proximity; the victim was not an identifiable individual at particular risk. Facts The claimant was the mother of Rosie Palmer, a four-year-old child who was abducted, sexually abused, and murdered by John Armstrong on 30 June 1994. Armstrong was a psychiatric patient who had been diagnosed with a severe psychopathic personality disorder. He had been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and was under the care of the defendant,
The plaintiff suffered severe nervous shock after seeing her seriously injured family in hospital, two hours after a road accident. The House of Lords held the negligent driver was liable, extending the duty of care to those witnessing the 'immediate aftermath'. Facts The plaintiff, Mrs McLoughlin, was at her home approximately two miles from the scene of a serious road traffic accident involving her husband and three of her children. The accident was caused by the negligence of the defendants. About two hours after the accident occurred, she was informed and driven to Addenbrooke’s Hospital. There, she saw her husband
The mother of the final victim of the 'Yorkshire Ripper' sued the police for negligence in failing to catch him. The House of Lords held that police do not owe a general duty of care to individuals for failing to apprehend criminals. Facts The appellant was the mother and administratrix of the estate of Jacqueline Hill, the final victim of Peter Sutcliffe, the “Yorkshire Ripper”. Sutcliffe had murdered thirteen women and attempted to murder others between 1975 and late 1980. The appellant brought an action for damages against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, alleging that the police force had
HM Customs & Excise obtained freezing orders against companies banking with Barclays. Despite notification, the bank negligently allowed funds to be withdrawn. Customs & Excise sued for damages. The court held that the bank owed them no duty of care in tort. Facts The claimants, the Commissioners of Customs & Excise (C&E), obtained freezing injunctions against two companies, Brightstar Systems Ltd and Doveblue Ltd, in relation to unpaid VAT. The orders were intended to prevent the companies from dissipating their assets below a certain value. The injunctions were served on Barclays Bank Plc, where the companies held accounts. Despite being
A pregnant woman suffered nervous shock and a stillbirth after hearing a motorcycle accident 50 feet away, although she did not see it. The House of Lords held the motorcyclist did not owe her a duty of care as she was an unforeseeable victim. Facts The appellant, Mrs Bourhill, a pregnant fishwife, was alighting from the driver’s side of a tramcar. At that moment, the respondent, John Young, riding a motorcycle at an excessive speed, passed the tram on its other side and violently collided with a motor car approximately 50 feet away. The appellant did not see the collision
Relations of Hillsborough disaster victims claimed for nervous shock after learning of the event through television or identifying bodies. The House of Lords denied their claims, establishing strict 'control mechanisms' for secondary victims, requiring close ties, proximity, and direct perception. Facts This case consolidated several claims for damages for nervous shock (psychiatric illness) arising from the Hillsborough Stadium disaster of 15 April 1989. A crush, caused by the admitted negligence of the South Yorkshire Police, resulted in the death of 95 football supporters and injury to over 400 others. The plaintiffs were all relatives or, in one case, a fiancée,
A local authority was sued for negligence after a man, formerly in their care, seriously assaulted a member of the public. The Supreme Court found the council owed no duty of care to protect the public from the future actions of children leaving care. Facts This case concerned an action for damages brought by ‘D’ against Glasgow City Council (‘the council’). The pursuer, D, was seriously assaulted by ‘C’ in 2018. At the time of the assault, C was an adult. However, from the age of eight until he was sixteen, C had been in the care of the council
