“House of Lords restricts psychiatric injury claims for secondary victims”
Various claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury suffered after witnessing or learning about the Hillsborough football stadium disaster in 1989, where 95 people died in a crush. The claimants included relatives and friends of victims who either witnessed events at the ground, saw television coverage, or heard about the disaster through other means.
Whether persons who suffered psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing or learning about the Hillsborough disaster could recover damages as secondary victims for nervous shock.
The House of Lords dismissed most appeals, establishing that secondary victims must satisfy strict proximity requirements including close ties of love and affection with primary victims and proximity in time and space to the incident or its immediate aftermath.
This case remains the leading authority on secondary victim claims for psychiatric injury, establishing restrictive control mechanisms that continue to limit such claims in tort law.
You're reading the free summary of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.