House of Lords
Facts
During an FA Cup match at Hillsborough Stadium in South Yorkshire, 95 people died when the stadium collapsed. The defendant (D), the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, was responsible for policing arrangements at the event. Overcrowding was alleged to be a contributing factor, leading to a negligence claim.
The plaintiffs included individuals who were present at the stadium, as well as others who witnessed the event on television or heard about it on the radio. All plaintiffs claimed to have suffered nervous shock (psychiatric injury) as a result of what they saw or heard and sought damages in negligence against the Defendant.
Issue: Was the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiffs sufficiently proximate to establish a negligence claim?
Held:
The House of Lords held that for a negligence claim to succeed, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate two key elements:
1. Reasonable foreseeability: The injuries suffered by the plaintiffs must have been reasonably foreseeable.
2. Proximity: The relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant must have been sufficiently proximate.
The court clarified that the class of persons to whom a duty of care is owed is not limited to spouses or parent-child relationships. Instead, it is based on ties of love and affection. However, the more remote the relationship, the more scrutiny is required to prove the closeness of the bond.
Additionally, the plaintiffs had to show propinquity in time and space—meaning they needed to be physically close to the accident or its immediate aftermath. Those who watched the event on television were not considered to be within sight or hearing of the event or its immediate aftermath, and thus their claims failed.
Key Takeaways
1. Proximity and foreseeability are essential in establishing a duty of care in negligence claims involving psychiatric injury.
2. The duty of care extends beyond immediate family members but requires proof of close ties of love and affection.
3. Physical proximity to the event or its aftermath is necessary; witnessing the event through media (e.g., TV or radio) does not satisfy this requirement.
This case remains a landmark decision in defining the limits of liability for nervous shock in negligence claims.
![Case Brief: Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728](https://superlawgh.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Carefully-drafted-case-briefs-to-make-understanding-the-law-simpler-and-more-efficient-1024x1024.jpg)
