The Hillsborough football disaster and claims for 'nervous shock'.

Abstract

The article investigates the scope for 'nervous shock' claims consequent on negligently inflicted injury, in the light of the Hillsborough disaster. It analyses the existing case law, including the first instance and Court of Appeal judgments in litigation arising from the disaster (for the House of Lords judgment, see Addendum). Its main purpose is to show that several of the arguments and conclusions in these judgments are driven by considerations of policy rather than principle, and primarily by a concern to prevent the 'floodgates of litigation' from opening. It is submitted that greater attention to medical perspectives on psychiatric illness would reveal that this concern is overstated and that a more principled approach would not have the adverse consequences predicted.