McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 13; [1994] 2 All ER 1; [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 16
NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE – DUTY OF CARE OWED TO RESCUERS – PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VICTIMS
Facts
The claimant (C) was on board a vessel which was called upon to attend to the serious fire that had broken out on the oil rig “Piper Alpha”, which was owned and operated by the defendant (D). The fire caused significant loss of life and a number of very serious injuries. C observed the disaster from the vessel. His assistance was limited to moving blankets to prepare for casualties and possibly helping two walking survivors. As a result of his experiences C suffered psychiatric injury, subsequently bringing an action in negligence against D. On a preliminary issue, the High Court held that D owed C a duty of care. D appealed.
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.
Issues
The principal issue on appeal was whether D owed a duty of care to C. It was assumed at first instance that a duty was owed to those workers on the rig to exercise reasonable care in preventing injury or death, and that breach of this duty had caused C to suffer psychiatric damage. Counsel for D argued, however, that this did not resolve the question of whether D owed a duty of care to C himself, as a later participant in the event, as it was not foreseeable that a person in C’s circumstances would suffer psychiatric harm as a result of D’s breach of duty to its workers.
Decision/Outcome
Allowing D’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that no duty of care was owed by D to C. At no point was C in physical danger, nor did he reasonably believe this was so, and the court did not regard his limited assistance as making him a rescuer; he could not, therefore, be a primary victim. Moreover, C did not meet the criteria to be considered as a secondary victim. A bystander claim required a close relationship of love and affection with a victim as well as nearness in time and place; merely witnessing horrific events was insufficient. D could not be liable for the harm C suffered.
