Trial·Breaker SQE1
SQE1 › FLK1 › Tort › Duty of care (including psychiatric harm and economic loss)
SQE1 · FLK1 · Tort

Duty of care (including psychiatric harm and economic loss) — SQE1 Tort question

A worked single-best-answer question on duty of care (including psychiatric harm and economic loss), with why each wrong option is wrong — the way SQE1 traps candidates.

Duty of care (including psychiatric harm and economic loss)

A temporary stand at a football ground collapsed during a match because of the negligence of the contractor, Arena Build Ltd, which erected it. Gareth watched the collapse live on television at home, knowing that his brother had a ticket for that stand. His brother was seriously injured. Gareth suffered a recognised psychiatric illness as a result of what he saw and his fear for his brother. He has no particularly close relationship with his brother beyond the ordinary ties of siblings.

Which of the following best describes whether Gareth can recover damages from Arena Build for his psychiatric illness?

  1. AYes, because psychiatric illness to a relative of an injured person was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the collapse.
  2. BNo, because as a secondary victim he lacks the required proximity to the event, having perceived it only through a television broadcast, and a close tie of love and affection with a brother is not presumed.
  3. CYes, because a close tie of love and affection is presumed between siblings, and he witnessed the event as it happened.
  4. DNo, because damages for psychiatric illness are recoverable only where the claimant also suffers physical injury.
  5. EYes, because he is a primary victim, having feared for the safety of his brother.
Show answer and reasoning
B is the best answer. Gareth is a secondary victim, as he was not himself in danger. Under Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, a secondary victim must show a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim, presence at the event or its immediate aftermath, and perception with his own unaided senses. Viewing the event on television does not satisfy the proximity requirement, and a close tie is presumed only in relationships such as parent–child or spouses.

Rule: A secondary victim of psychiatric harm must show a close tie of love and affection, proximity in time and space to the event or its immediate aftermath, and perception by his own unaided senses.

  • A Foreseeability alone is insufficient for secondary victims; the Alcock control mechanisms must also be met. (wrong rule)
  • C A close tie is presumed for parents, children and spouses or engaged couples, not siblings, and live television viewing is not perception with one's own senses. (wrong rule)
  • D Pure psychiatric injury is recoverable without physical injury where the relevant requirements are met. (wrong rule)
  • E A primary victim is one within the range of foreseeable physical injury; fear for another person makes Gareth a secondary victim. (wrong rule)

Source: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310; Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1

Practise more Tort   All Tort subtopics