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.
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.
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.
Following the Hillsborough disaster where 95 people died in a stadium crush, relatives and friends of victims claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by witnessing the events on television or at the ground. The House of Lords dismissed all appeals, establishing that recovery for nervous shock requires proximity in time, space, and relationship to the primary victim.
A dental house officer suffered a migraine attack during a career advice meeting. She claimed the interviewer abandoned her on the stairs without calling help. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal against summary judgment, holding that whether a duty of care existed required factual determination applying Caparo principles.
A pregnant fishwife suffered nervous shock after hearing a motorcycle collision approximately 50 feet away, though she was never in physical danger and saw nothing of the accident itself. The House of Lords held the motorcyclist owed her no duty of care as she was outside the foreseeable area of potential danger.
Caparo purchased shares in Fidelity relying on audited accounts prepared by Touche Ross. The accounts were allegedly negligent, overstating profits. Caparo sued the auditors claiming they owed a duty of care. The House of Lords held auditors owe no duty to individual shareholders for investment decisions or to potential investors, only to shareholders collectively for proper corporate governance purposes.
The mother of Jacqueline Hill, murdered by Peter Sutcliffe (the 'Yorkshire Ripper'), sued West Yorkshire Police for negligence in failing to apprehend him sooner. The House of Lords held that police owe no duty of care to individual members of the public in investigating crime, and public policy considerations supported immunity from such claims.
Junior Books engaged Veitchi as nominated sub-contractors to lay flooring in their factory. The floor proved defective due to poor workmanship, requiring replacement. Despite no contractual relationship between the parties, the House of Lords held Veitchi liable in tort for pure economic loss, given the exceptional proximity between the parties.
An asthmatic woman suffered respiratory arrest after the London Ambulance Service took 34 minutes to respond to an emergency call, when it should have arrived within 20 minutes. The Court of Appeal held that the ambulance service owed a duty of care to the claimant once the call was accepted, distinguishing it from fire and police services.
The plaintiff, on board the support vessel Tharos during the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster, claimed psychiatric injury from witnessing the catastrophe. The Court of Appeal held he was not owed a duty of care as he was neither in actual danger, a rescuer, nor had sufficient proximity as a bystander.
A mother witnessed her ten-month-old baby have a fit in hospital due to negligent treatment, was given incorrect reassurances, then learned of severe brain damage, and held her son as he died 36 hours later. The court held this constituted a single horrifying event permitting recovery for psychiatric injury as a secondary victim.
A psychiatric patient, Armstrong, murdered four‑year‑old Rosie Palmer. Her mother sued health authorities, alleging negligent diagnosis, treatment and failure to detain him, and claiming for her own psychiatric injury. The Court of Appeal held there was no duty of care to unidentifiable victims and her secondary victim claim failed. Appeal dismissed.
A Bangladeshi villager alleged the British Geological Survey, part of NERC, negligently failed to test for arsenic and implied local tubewell water was safe, leading to his arsenic poisoning. The House of Lords held NERC owed no duty of care to Bangladesh’s population and upheld summary judgment.
Mrs Taylor was injured at work through her employer’s admitted negligence and died three weeks later from complications. Her daughter developed PTSD after witnessing the death and claimed as a secondary victim. The Court of Appeal held she could not recover, restricting proximity for psychiatric injury claims.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive