(Estimated reading time: 58 seconds)
The Supreme Court concluded that “…unless the exception defined by the Alcock line of authority is to become the general rule, a line must be drawn somewhere to keep the liability of negligent actors for such secondary harm within reasonable bounds.”
And: “…a category of cases where secondary victims sustain illness as a result of witnessing a death or manifestation of injury which is not caused by an external, traumatic event in the nature of an accident but is the result of a pre-existing injury or disease is not considered as analogous”
In simple terms, it means that the state of health of a patient’s relatives is not relevant to treating doctors, even if they might potentially be psychologically affected by witnessing symptoms of a patient’s condition which negligently had not been treated – with the only exception being cases meeting the criteria set out in Alcock. It is noted then that the Supreme Court has set out a policy of significantly restricting the possibility of secondary victims’ claims being able to be pursued.
If you have any further questions or observations with regard to this decision, please feel free to contact us on 01483 577877.
