Alcock v Chief Constable of S Yorks Police [1991]

Ten appellants suffered psychological (but not physical)
injury as result of Hillsborough Stadium disaster.
All appeals before House of Lords failed.
Limitation based on three elements:
1.  Class of persons
whose claims should be recognised.
Must be sufficiently close relationship of love and
affection between plaintiff and victim.
Sufficiently close relationship will only be presumed
in case of close relatives.
So clear that mere bystander cannot sue.
2.  Proximity of
those persons to the accident.
Must be sufficient proximity of time and place to
mentally injurious event.
Court approved McLoughlin
but distinguished present case on basis that interval between accident and
sight of bodies was longer (9 hours).
3.  Means by
which trauma to plaintiff is caused.
Must be by sight or hearing of the event or its
immediate aftermath.
Notification by 3rd parties (including newspaper
and broadcast reports) will not do.
Lord Oliver:
Made comments regarding other potential situations:
1.  People
shocked by fear for their own safety are primary victims.
2.  So are those
suffering mental injury while engaged as rescuers at incident.
3.  So are
employees who as result of employer’s negligence become unwilling participants
in injury of workmate.
Hence the secondary victim test will not apply.