Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912
NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE TO RESCUERS – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – PRIMARY VICTIMS
Facts
The claimant, Henry Chadwick (C) was described as a cheerful man who was active in his local community and ran a well-known window cleaning company. Although he had previously suffered with psycho-neurotic symptoms in 1941 there had been no subsequent recurrence.
C and his wife lived 200 yards from the scene of the Lewisham rail crash, a serious train collision that left 90 people dead and others with severe injuries. Having been informed of the crash C immediately made his way to the scene to provide assistance. C remained at the scene throughout the night.
C suffered serious psychiatric damage as a result of his experiences and was no longer able to work. C later died of an unrelated condition and his personal representatives brought an action against British Railways Board (D), whose negligence in relation to the crash was not in dispute.
Issue
The claim was disputed by D, who argued that no duty of care was owed to rescuers who might volunteer to assist at the scene of a disaster, regardless of whether the disaster itself was the product of negligence. It thus fell to be determined whether it was reasonably foreseeable both that C would attend to the scene and that he might suffer psychiatric harm as a consequence.
Decision/Outcome
Finding for C, the Court held that it was reasonably foreseeable that people, other than D’s employees, might try to render assistance and might suffer personal injury, physical or psychiatric, as a result. A duty of care was therefore owed to D. Moreover, there was nothing on the circumstances to suggest that the damage suffered by D was so remote as to be outside the contemplation of D.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate. Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912 is an established authority on the duty of care owed to rescuers who suffer psychiatric harm as a result of attending the scene of a negligently caused disaster. The decision has been consistently recognised and applied in subsequent case law.
Students should note, however, that the legal landscape governing psychiatric injury has developed significantly since 1967. The House of Lords in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 and Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 introduced the primary/secondary victim distinction, which affects how rescuer cases are now analysed. The Court of Appeal in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (HL) narrowed the position for rescuers, holding that a rescuer will only be treated as a primary victim — and thus able to recover for psychiatric harm without satisfying the Alcock control mechanisms — if they were themselves exposed to physical danger or reasonably believed themselves to be so. Chadwick was distinguished in White on the basis that the rescuers in that case had not been in personal danger. The article does not address these later developments, which are essential context for understanding how Chadwick fits within the modern law of psychiatric injury.
The article also contains a drafting error in the outcome section, referring to the duty of care being owed to “D” rather than to “C” (the claimant) in two places; readers should read those references as referring to the claimant.
