Greatorex v Greatorex & Anor [2000] EWHC 223 (QB) (05 May 2000)

Greatorex v Greatorex & Anor [2000] EWHC 223 (QB) (05 May 2000)

There is no duty of care owed by a primary victim of self-inflicted injuries towards a secondary party who suffers psychiatric illness as a result of those injuries. Policy considerations, including the right of self-determination and the potential for undesirable family litigation, outweigh arguments for imposing such a duty.

Citation
[2000] EWHC 223 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (First Defendant's father, Leading Fire Officer); First Defendant: First Defendant (son, driver); Second Defendant: Motor Insurers' Bureau; Part 20 Defendant: Part 20 Defendant (car owner, friend)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Preliminary Issue Determination
Outcome
Claim dismissed on preliminary issue; no duty of care owed by First Defendant to Claimant for psychiatric injury from self-inflicted injuries.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Psychiatric Injury, Secondary Victims, Policy Considerations
Tort Law Negligence Duty of Care Psychiatric Injury Secondary Victims Policy Considerations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (First Defendant's father, Leading Fire Officer)

Claimant

First Defendant (son, driver)

First Defendant

Motor Insurers' Bureau

Second Defendant

Part 20 Defendant (car owner, friend)

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Preliminary Issue Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a primary victim of self-inflicted injuries owes a duty of care to a third party for psychiatric injury
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant owed the Claimant a duty of care not to harm himself
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant owed the Claimant a duty of care not to cause psychiatric injury by exposing him to the sight of self-inflicted injuries

Ratio Decidendi

There is no duty of care owed by a primary victim of self-inflicted injuries towards a secondary party who suffers psychiatric illness as a result of those injuries. Policy considerations, including the right of self-determination and the potential for undesirable family litigation, outweigh arguments for imposing such a duty.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed on preliminary issue; no duty of care owed by First Defendant to Claimant for psychiatric injury from self-inflicted injuries.

Orders

  • The three preliminary questions of law are answered in the negative: (1) No duty of care owed by primary victim for psychiatric injury from self-inflicted injuries; (2) No duty of care not to harm himself; (3) No duty of care not to cause psychiatric injury by exposing Claimant to sight of self-inflicted injuries.