Copoc et al. v. Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, (1991) 131 N.R. 194 (HL)

• Case Date: November 28, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 131 N.R. 194 (HL)

Copoc v. South Yorkshire Police (1991), 131 N.R. 194 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Copoc (A.P.) and others (A.P.) (appellants) v. Wright (sued as Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police) (respondent)

Alcock (A.P.) and others (A.P.) (appellants) v. Wright (sued as Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police) (respondent) (Consolidated Appeals)

Indexed As: Copoc et al. v. Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry

November 28, 1991.

Summary:

This litigation was a consequence of the 1989 disaster at a football stadium in Sheffield, England. The police, who were responsible for crowd control, negligently allowed an excessively large number of intending spectators to enter a reserved area of the stadium. In the ensuing crush, 95 people were killed and over 400 injured. Scenes of the disaster were broadcast live on television. Later, recordings were broadcast. Sixteen plaintiffs sued Wright in his capacity as the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. The plaintiffs suffered psychiatric illness as a consequence of nervous shock. In each case, the plaintiffs had a close relative or a friend either killed or injured. While some of the plaintiffs had been present and viewed the incident from a different part of the stadium, most had merely seen it on television through either the simultaneous or the recorded broadcasts. Most of the plaintiffs knew that the victims would be at the stadium. While Wright admitted that his officers were negligent, he submitted that only those killed or injured were entitled to recover damages. Wright claimed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages because it was not reasonably foreseeable that they would suffer from psychiatric illness.

The Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [1991] 2 W.L.R. 814, found in favour of 10 of the 16 plaintiffs. The defendant appealed the cases of nine of the 10 successful plaintiffs. The six unsuccessful plaintiffs also appealed.

The Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at [1991] 3 All E.R. 88, allowed the defendant's appeal in the cases of the nine formerly successful plaintiffs and dismissed the appeals of the six formerly unsuccessful plaintiffs. Ten of the plaintiffs appealed.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeals.

Torts - Topic 8701

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - General - A number of persons were either killed or injured when crushed by the crowd at a football match - Some of their friends and relatives experienced nervous shock when they witnessed the event on television or heard of it on the radio - Those friends and relatives later sued for damages in negligence on the ground they experienced psychiatric illness as a result of the shock - A member of the House of Lords reviewed the courts' treatment of third party claims where otherwise uninjured plaintiffs attempted to recover for shock and psychiatric illness that resulted from either seeing or hearing another person being injured - See paragraphs 16 to 22.

Torts - Topic 8702

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Nervous shock defined - A number of persons were killed or injured when crushed at a football match - Many of their friends and relations witnessed the event on television or heard about it on the radio - Some of the friends and relatives experienced nervous shock and later suffered from psychiatric illness - In an action in negligence for damages a member of the House of Lords stated that "'[s]hock', in the context of this cause of action, involves the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. It has yet to include psychiatric illness caused by the accumulation over a period of time of more gradual assaults on the nervous system." - See paragraph 21.

Torts - Topic 8703

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - The House of Lords considered the nature of a tort action in negligence where the plaintiff was physically uninjured but experienced psychiatric illness as a consequence of nervous shock stemming from seeing or hearing another person injured - Their Lordships noted that in such a case, the concept of proximity was added to the usual reasonably foreseeable test as a means of narrowing the potential number of those to whom the duty of care was owed - That proximity requirement was composed of three elements: (1) the class of persons whose claim should be recognised; (2) the proximity of such persons to the accident (in time and space); and (3) the means by which the shock is caused - See paragraphs 4 to 7, 24, 44 to 48, 62.

Torts - Topic 8703

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - A considerable number of persons were either killed or injured when crushed by the crowd at a football match - Some of the friends and relatives saw the disaster on television or heard of it on the radio - Some of those experienced nervous shock and psychiatric illness - A claim for damages in negligence was dismissed by the House of Lords - Three of their Lordships also expressed doubt as to the correctness of two recent trial decisions in which the plaintiffs recovered for nervous shock and psychiatric illness after being told of a son's death - See paragraphs 7, 18, 58.

Torts - Topic 8703

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - Brothers - Death of - Harrison's brothers were two of 95 people killed when they were crushed by the crowd at a football match - Harrison witnessed the disaster from another part of the stadium - He knew that his brothers were in the danger area - He learned of their death the following morning - Harrison sued in negligence to recover damages for nervous shock and psychiatric illness - The House of Lords dismissed the claim - Their Lordships found that Harrison failed to prove that his relationship with his brothers involved the particularly close ties of love and affection necessary to establish the proximity required to place him in the class on persons entitled to recover for nervous shock - See paragraphs 8, 34, 58, 70.

Torts - Topic 8703

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - Brother-in-law - Death of - Alcock's brother-in-law was one of 95 people killed when they were crushed by the crowd at a football match - Alcock saw the disaster from a different area of the stadium - Alcock thought his brother-in-law was safe in another area - Eight hours later, Alcock located the body in the mortuary - Alcock sued in negligence to recover damages for nervous shock and psychiatric illness - The House of Lords dismissed the claim on the ground that he failed to prove the proximity necessary to give rise to a duty of care - See paragraphs 5, 70.

Torts - Topic 8703

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - Television - Relatives - Death of - The plaintiffs each had a brother or grandson killed or injured when they were crushed by the crowd at a football match - Some of the plaintiffs witnessed the event on live television - The television images did not show the suffering of recognisable individuals - It was hours before the plaintiffs learned the relatives' fate - The plaintiffs sued in negligence to recover damages for nervous shock and psychiatric illness - The House of Lords dismissed the claim - Their Lordships held that viewing a live television broadcast was not the equivalent of seeing or hearing the event or its immediate aftermath - Therefore, it failed to meet the proximity requirement necessary to establish a duty of care - See paragraphs 8, 33, 57, 69.

Torts - Topic 8706

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - Proximity - Class of persons whose claims should be recognised - Sons - The Copocs' son was among the 95 people killed when they were crushed by the crowd at a football match - The Copocs viewed the event on live television - The suffering of recognisable individuals was not shown - The Copocs experienced nervous shock from viewing the television coverage and later suffered from psychiatric illness - The Copocs sued in negligence for damages - The House of Lords dismissed the claim - Their Lordships found that the television broadcast failed to meet the third component of the proximity requirement in that it was not the equivalent to actually seeing or hearing the event or its aftermath - See paragraphs 8, 33, 57, 69.

Torts - Topic 8706

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - Proximity - Class of persons whose claims should be recognised - Brothers - [See third Torts - Topic 8703 ].

Torts - Topic 8706

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - Proximity - Class of persons whose claims should be recognised - Brother-in-law - [See fourth Torts - Topic 8703 ].

Torts - Topic 8706

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - Proximity - Class of persons whose claims should be recognised - Fiancé - Alexandra Penk's fiancé was among the 95 people killed when they were crushed by the crowd at a football match - Penk viewed the event on live television and knew instinctively that her fiancé was in trouble - The suffering of recognisable individuals was not shown - Penk experienced nervous shock from viewing the television coverage and later suffered from psychiatric illness - Penk sued in negligence for damages - The House of Lords dismissed the claim - Their Lordships found that the television broadcast failed to meet the third component of the proximity requirement in that it was not the equivalent to actually seeing or hearing the event or its aftermath - See paragraphs 8, 33, 57, 69.

Torts - Topic 8706

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - Proximity - Class of persons whose claims should be recognised - Relatives and friends - A number of persons were killed or injured - Some of their friends and relatives experienced nervous shock when they saw the event on television or heard of it on the radio - Some of those later suffered from psychiatric illness - They sued in negligence to recover damages - The defendant submitted that, inter alia, most of the plaintiffs were outside the class of persons entitled to recover (i.e., spouses and parents) - The House of Lords ruled that any plaintiff who could demonstrate close ties of love and affection for the person injured was a member of the class entitled to sue - See paragraphs 6, 30, 55, 66, 67.

Torts - Topic 8706

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - Proximity - Class of persons whose claims should be recognised - Bystanders - The House of Lords considered the nature of a tort action in negligence brought by a person who, while physically uninjured, experienced psychiatric illness as a consequence of nervous shock stemming from either seeing or hearing another person being injured - While their Lordships noted that such claims were limited to those with close ties of care and affection to the victims, three of their Lordships opined that given sufficiently horrific circumstances, the defendant's duty of care could be extended to include a bystander unconnected with the victims - See paragraphs 6, 25, 55.

Torts - Topic 8707

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock - Psychiatric illness - Proximity - Television - As a result of police negligence, 95 people were killed when they were crushed by the crowd at a football match - Many relatives of the victims witnessed the event on live television - The suffering of recognisable individuals was not broadcast - Nevertheless, many relatives experienced nervous shock and suffered from psychiatric illness - Some of the friends and relatives sued in negligence for damages - The House of Lords dismissed the claim because the necessary degree of proximity was lacking - Nevertheless, two of their Lordships opined that there might be circumstances where viewing the event on live television could constitute sufficient proximity to sustain a claim for damages - See paragraphs 8, 33, 57, 69.

Cases Noticed:

Bourhill v. Young, [1943] A.C. 92, consd. [para. 4].

McLoughlin v. O'Brian, [1983] 1 A.C. 410, consd. [para. 4].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562, consd. [para. 5].

Jaensch v. Coffey (1984), 54 A.L.R. 417, consd. [para. 7].

Hevican v. Ruane, [1991] 3 All E.R. 65, not apprvd [para. 7].

Ravenscroft v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, [1991] 3 All E.R. 73, not apprvd [para. 7].

Hambrook v. Stokes Bros., [1925] 1 K.B. 141, dist. [para. 18].

McKew v. Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd., [1969] 3 All E.R. 1621, refd to. [para. 22].

Dulieu v. White & Sons, [1901] 2 K.B. 669, dist. [para. 39].

Bell v. Great Northern Railway Co. of Ireland (1890), 26 L.R.I. 428, dist. [para. 39].

Schneider v. Eisovitch, [1960] 2 Q.B. 430, dist. [para. 39].

Wagner v. International Railway Co. (1921), 232 N.Y. 176, consd. [para. 40].

Chadwick v. British Railway Board, [1967] 1 W.L.R. 912, consd. [para. 40].

Dooley v. Cammel Laird & Co. Ltd., [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 271, refd to. [para. 41].

Galt v. British Railways Board (1983), 133 N.L.J. 870, refd to. [para. 41].

Kirkham v. Boughey, [1958] 2 Q.B. 338, consd. [para. 43].

Best v. Samuel Fox & Co. Ltd., [1952] A.C. 716, consd. [para. 43].

Heaven v. Pender (1883), 11 Q.B.D. 503, consd. [para. 44].

King v. Phillips, [1953] 1 Q.B. 429, consd. [para. 48].

Owens v. Liverpool Corporation, [1939] 1 K.B. 394, consd. [para. 48].

Hinz v. Berry, [1970] 2 Q.B. 40, consd. [para. 50].

Dillon v. Legg (1968), 69 Cal. Rptr. 72, refd to. [para. 52].

Caparo Industries plc. v. Dickman, [1990] A.C. 605; 108 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 54].

Jones v. Wright, [1991] 3 All E.R. 88, refd to. [para. 69].

Statutes Noticed:

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (U.K.), No. 28, 1944, sect. 4(5) [para. 29].

Counsel:

B.A. Hytner, Q.C., and T. King, Q.C., for the appellants;

W.C. Woodward, Q.C., and P. Limb, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on October 7-10 and 14, 1991, in London, England, by Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry of the House of Lords.

The decision of the House of Lords was given on November 28, 1991, when the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Keith of Kinkel - see paragraphs 1 to 9;

Lord Ackner - see paragraphs 10 to 34;

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton - see paragraphs 35 to 60;

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle - see paragraphs 61 to 71;

Lord Lowry - see paragraph 72.