Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 4 All ER 769
Negligence – Duty of Care – Secondary Victims – Liability of Family Members – Psychiatric Damage
Facts
The defendant, John Greatorex (D), had been drinking with his friend H. With H’s permission D proceeded to drive H’s car, with H himself as a passenger. D was responsible for a serious collision with an oncoming vehicle. H did not suffer any serious injuries but D was left trapped inside the car, unconscious and with a severe head injury.
The emergency services were called and soon arrived on the scene. Amongst them was the claimant, Christopher Greatorex (C), a fire officer and the father of D. Having to attend to his son in such circumstances caused C to develop long-term post-traumatic stress disorder, and as a result C brought an action against D in negligence.
Issues
The principal issue in this case was whether, and in what circumstances, a person could be liable in negligence to a close family member for any self-inflicted harm that, having been witnessed by said family member, had caused them to suffer lasting psychiatric damage.
Decision/Outcome
The court, finding in favour of C, rejected the claim on policy grounds. Whilst it was correct that C fell within the definition of a ‘secondary victim’, meeting the criteria set out in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, a primary victim could not be liable in negligence to a family member as a result of their own self-inflicted injuries; no duty of care was owed in such circumstances, as to hold otherwise would place an inexcusable fetter on personal autonomy. Moreover, to permit litigation for purely psychiatric damage in such cases might exacerbate the underlying problem, for instance if the primary victim were themselves suffering from a psychiatric disorder, and “would be potentially productive of acute family strife.”
Updated 19 March 2026
This article remains broadly accurate as a summary of Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 4 All ER 769. The legal principles discussed — particularly the control mechanisms for secondary victim claims established in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310, and the policy reasoning against imposing a duty of care on a primary victim for self-inflicted harm witnessed by a close relative — have not been overturned and continue to represent the law in England and Wales.
However, readers should be aware that secondary victim claims more broadly have been the subject of significant judicial development since this article was written. In particular, the Supreme Court in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1 revisited and refined the Alcock control mechanisms, most notably clarifying the requirement that the claimant must perceive the accident or its immediate aftermath, and addressing the position where psychiatric injury results from witnessing the consequences of clinical negligence. While Paul does not directly disturb the specific ratio of Greatorex, students should read this case alongside Greatorex for a complete and current understanding of secondary victim liability. There is also a drafting inaccuracy in the article worth noting: the text states the court found "in favour of C" but then immediately states the claim was rejected — the court in fact found in favour of D (the defendant), dismissing C’s claim.
