xmtradingxmtradingxmtradingxmtradingsonbahis girişsonbahissonbahis güncelsweet bonanza oynasweet bonanza oynaaresbetaresbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişteosbetteosbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyal girişenbetenbet girişhilbethilbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişyakabetyakabet girişcasibom güncel girişcasibomcasibom girişcasibom güncel girişcasibomcasibom girişcasibom güncel girişaresbetaresbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişteosbetteosbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyal girişenbetenbet girişhilbethilbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişyakabetyakabet girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritking güncel girişmeritkingkulisbetcasibomcasibom girişcasibom güncel girişXMTradingkulisbetkulisbet girişaresbetaresbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişteosbetteosbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişyakabetyakabet girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişmedusabahisbetboxbetbox girişbetboxroketbetroketbet girişroketbetefesbetefesbet girişefesbetbetparibubetparibu girişbetparibuikimisliikimisli girişikimislinesinecasinonesinecasino girişnesinecasinoaresbetaresbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişteosbetteosbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişkulisbetkulisbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişhilbethilbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişteosbetteosbet girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişteosbetteosbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişikimisliikimisli girişikimisliikimisli girişaresbetaresbet girişaresbetaresbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişaresbetaresbet girişhilbethilbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişaresbetaresbet girişhilbethilbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet girişheybetheybet girişgorabetgorabet girişmakrobetmakrobet girişnesinecasinonesinecasino girişhayalbahishayalbahis girişxslotxslot girişhiltonbet girişhiltonbethiltonbetmedusabahis girişmedusabahismedusabahisloyalbahis girişloyalbahisloyalbahisatlasbet girişatlasbetatlasbetenbet girişenbetenbetsüratbet girişsüratbetsüratbethayalbahis girişhayalbahishayalbahisxslot girişxslotxslotelexbet girişelexbetelexbetrestbet girişrestbetrestbetperabet girişperabetperabetgalabetgalabetultrabetultrabetrinabetrinabetmasterbettingmasterbettingbahiscasinobahiscasinobetnanobetnanoroyalbetroyalbetyakabetyakabetlordbahislordbahisslot sitelericasino sitelerikingroyalkingroyalcasino sitelerislot sitelerimasterbettingmasterbettingbetkolikbetkolikyakabetyakabetkulisbetkulisbet
Skip to content
Home » White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455

White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455

The case of White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 is a leading decision in English tort law, particularly in the area of negligence involving psychiatric harm, employer liability, and the status of rescuers. It was decided by the House of Lords and remains a significant precedent for understanding the legal boundaries of claims arising from emotional or psychological injury suffered during the course of employment.

This case arose out of the tragic Hillsborough Stadium disaster of 1989, a catastrophic event in which 95 Liverpool football fans died as a result of overcrowding at an FA Cup semi-final match. The case did not concern compensation for the families of the deceased, but rather a group of police officers who had worked during the event and claimed to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Factual Background of White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

In White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, the claimants were all serving police officers who had been on duty during the Hillsborough disaster. These officers were directly involved in the aftermath of the tragedy. Although they were not physically injured, they suffered psychiatric harm, including symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), after witnessing the traumatic scenes.

The claimants sued their employer—the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police—for negligence and/or breach of statutory duty, contending that their employer had failed in his duty of care to protect them from psychiatric harm.

It was not disputed in the case that the Chief Constable had acted negligently or that the police officers had suffered genuine psychiatric injury. The dispute instead concerned whether a legal duty of care extended to such circumstances, especially when no physical danger was involved.

Legal Issues

The legal questions before the House of Lords in White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police were focused on the extent and scope of the duty of care in negligence claims involving psychiatric harm. Specifically, two main issues were raised:

  1. Did the employer owe a duty of care to protect employees from psychiatric injury caused by witnessing a traumatic event during the course of their work?
  2. Could the claimants be considered ‘primary victims’, and therefore not subject to the restrictive conditions applicable to ‘secondary victims’ as outlined in the earlier case Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310?

In negligence claims, the distinction between primary and secondary victims is critical. Primary victims are those who are either physically injured or placed in immediate danger of physical injury. Secondary victims, in contrast, are those who witness injury to others and may suffer psychiatric harm as a result but were never personally at risk.

The claimants in White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police argued that, as rescuers, they should be treated as primary victims due to their active involvement in the aftermath of the disaster. This would allow them to bypass the strict control mechanisms placed on claims by secondary victims, such as a close tie of love and affection, physical proximity, and direct perception of the incident.

White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police Judgement

The House of Lords, in a unanimous decision, found against the claimants. The appeal of the Chief Constable was allowed, and the previous decision of the Court of Appeal, which had ruled in favour of the police officers, was overturned.

The Lords held that none of the claimants in White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police qualified as primary victims. The crucial reason was that none of them were ever in personal physical danger, nor did they reasonably believe themselves to be so. This finding was decisive in classifying the officers as secondary victims, despite their role as rescuers and their presence at the scene.

In considering the rescuer argument, the Lords distinguished this case from earlier decisions such as Chadwick v British Railways Board, where a civilian rescuer who entered the zone of danger after a train crash was awarded damages.

In White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, the Court found that the officers were acting in the course of their employment and were not placed in any danger, either real or perceived. Therefore, the broader rescuer principle was not extended to cover this case.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that while employers owe a duty to take reasonable steps to protect their employees from physical harm, that duty does not extend to cover purely psychiatric harm, unless there is some risk of physical injury. In the absence of such risk, the employer is not liable for psychiatric damage, even when caused by negligence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 is a seminal case that drew a clear distinction between primary and secondary victims, reaffirmed the limits of employer liability, and clarified the status of rescuers in negligence claims for psychiatric harm.

Despite the compelling facts and genuine suffering of the claimants, the Court held that legal liability could not be imposed in the absence of personal danger. This decision remains a cornerstone in the development of English negligence law, particularly in the challenging and often controversial area of psychiatric injury.