Donachie v Greater Manchester Police

Donachie v Greater Manchester Police

The claimant was a primary victim because the Chief Constable's breaches of duty gave rise to a reasonable foreseeability of physical injury, even if the injury suffered was psychiatric or of a different form. The Chief Constable must take the claimant as found, and pre-existing vulnerability is irrelevant. The excess exposure to stress caused or materially contributed to the claimant's stroke, satisfying the 'but for' test of causation. The judge erred in applying the wrong foreseeability test and in treating the claimant as a secondary victim.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: David L Donachie; Respondent/defendant: The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Manchester County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Personal Injury, Reasonable Foreseeability, Causation, Occupational Stress, Employer's Liability
Tort Law Employment Law Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Personal Injury Reasonable Foreseeability Causation Occupational Stress +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David L Donachie

Appellant/claimant

The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Manchester County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injury suffered by the claimant was reasonably foreseeable for the purposes of negligence and breach of statutory duty
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was a primary or secondary victim for the purposes of psychiatric injury
  3. 3 Whether the Chief Constable's breach of duty caused or materially contributed to the claimant's injury

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was a primary victim because the Chief Constable's breaches of duty gave rise to a reasonable foreseeability of physical injury, even if the injury suffered was psychiatric or of a different form. The Chief Constable must take the claimant as found, and pre-existing vulnerability is irrelevant. The excess exposure to stress caused or materially contributed to the claimant's stroke, satisfying the 'but for' test of causation. The judge erred in applying the wrong foreseeability test and in treating the claimant as a secondary victim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant
  • Case remitted to Manchester County Court for directions and disposal as to quantum, including detailed assessment if not agreed