Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912; [1967] 2 All ER 945
NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE TO RESCUERS – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE
Facts
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 widow, Ellen Chadwick, as administratrix of his estate, brought an action against British Railways Board (D), whose negligence in relation to the crash was not in dispute.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
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 the scene and that he might suffer psychiatric harm as a consequence.
Decision/Outcome
Finding for the estate, 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 C. Moreover, there was nothing in the circumstances to suggest that the damage suffered by C was so remote as to be outside the contemplation of D. Although C faced an element of personal danger, Waller J treated his illness as a reaction to the horror of the whole experience. Recovery did not depend on the shock having been caused by fear for his own safety or that of his children.
