ABSTRACT
Since the 1990s, English tort law has recognised the limited circumstances in which a claimant is owed a duty of care for psychiatric injury caused by an accident that they were were not directly involved in. In particular, the eponymous Alcock control of ‘proximity of relationship’ mandates that a secondary victim must have a sufficiently close relationship with the participant in the accident (the primary victim). This article examines the fairness of proximity of relationship as a means of restricting claims in secondary victim cases, ultimately arguing that it requires reform. Section II provides a doctrinal analysis of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, identifying three weaknesses within the judgment. Section III provides a quantitative analysis of the case law on secondary victims since Alcock, revealing how the courts have not always conformed to the requirements of proximity of relationship, as well as analysing the role of the ‘sudden shock’ requirement and gender stereotypes in exacerbating the unfairness of this control mechanism. Thereafter, Section IV explores and compares alternative avenues for reform of this control mechanism, including both conservative and radical changes.
€ (Hein Online)
Saniya Mehmmod, With Love and Affection: Rethinking the Fairness of Proximity of Relationship in Secondary Victim Claims (2025) 10 Cambridge Law Review 115 (2025).
Leave a Reply