White v Lidl UK GmbH [2005] EWHC 871 (QB) (21 April 2005)

White v Lidl UK GmbH [2005] EWHC 871 (QB) (21 April 2005)

The relevant event for the purposes of secondary victim claims is the original negligent incident (the barrier accident), not the subsequent suicide. The claimant did not suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing the accident or its immediate aftermath, and the suicide was a separate event too remote in time and space. The law does not extend to cover psychiatric injury caused by witnessing a wholly distinct event, even if causally linked to the defendant's negligence.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 871 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Robert Barry White; Defendant/respondent: Lidl UK GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal Against Strike Out Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Psychiatric Injury, Secondary Victims, Duty of Care, Proximity, Strike Out Applications
Tort Law Personal Injury Psychiatric Injury Secondary Victims Duty of Care Proximity Strike Out Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Barry White

Claimant/appellant

Lidl UK GmbH

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal Against Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant, as a secondary victim, can recover damages for psychiatric injury resulting from witnessing the suicide of his wife, allegedly caused by the defendant's negligence six months earlier.
  2. 2 Whether the criteria for secondary victim recovery should be extended to cover the claimant's circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The relevant event for the purposes of secondary victim claims is the original negligent incident (the barrier accident), not the subsequent suicide. The claimant did not suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing the accident or its immediate aftermath, and the suicide was a separate event too remote in time and space. The law does not extend to cover psychiatric injury caused by witnessing a wholly distinct event, even if causally linked to the defendant's negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out
  • No extension of secondary victim criteria