TortNegligence - self-inflicted injury - psychiatric injury to victim's relative - policy reasons for refusal of damagesGreatorex v Greatorex and Others: QBD (Cazalet J): 5 May 2000

The claimant in an action for damages against his son, the Motor Insurers' Bureau and the car owner, sought determination on preliminary questions of law as to the duty of care owed by a primary victim where self-inflicted injuries had caused a third party psychiatric injury.It was agreed that the uninsured driver, who had been drinking, had negligently driven a friend's car on the wrong side of the road, crashed and had suffered head injuries.The claimant, a leading fire officer, having gone to the scene of the accident in the course of his employment, was subsequently diagnosed with long-term severe post-traumatic stress disorder as a result.Nicholas Mason (instructed by Poole Alcock & Co, Nantwich) for the claimant; Graham Eklund (instructed by Keogh Ritson, Bolton) for the Motor Insurers' Bureau; the other two defendants were not represented and did not appear.Held, dismissing the application, that, besides foreseeability of damage and 'proximity' between the parties, it must also be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in a particular situation; that policy considerations against there being such a duty owed clearly out-weighed the arguments in favour, as to impose liability for causing psychiatric harm in such circumstances would create a significant limitation upon the individual's freedom of action and, particularly where the parties were members of the same family, would be potentially productive of acute family strife; and that any decision that there should be civil liability to a secondary victim who suffered psychiatric harm in consequence of a primary victim's self-inflicted injuries would be better left to Parliament as the best arbiter of what the public interest required.

(WLR)