Witnessing a traumatic event – When can a personal injury claim be made?

Witnessing a serious accident or other traumatic event can be deeply distressing, particularly when someone is seriously injured. In some circumstances, a person who develops a psychiatric condition after witnessing an incident may be able to make a personal injury claim.

However, the law distinguishes between people directly involved in a dangerous event and those who witness it without being in immediate danger themselves.

This distinction is important because different legal requirements apply depending on whether someone is considered a primary or secondary victim.

To make a claim, you must also have medical evidence of a recognised psychiatric condition. Experiencing grief, distress or other temporary emotional reactions, however difficult, is not enough on its own.

Before making a claim for psychiatric injury, you must be able to demonstrate that you have developed a recognised psychiatric condition.

An independent medical expert who has not previously treated you will carry out a psychological assessment. This assessment helps establish whether your symptoms amount to a recognised psychiatric injury.

The distinction between a recognised condition and an ordinary emotional response is important.

Although witnessing a traumatic event may cause considerable distress, temporary grief, shock or other normal emotional reactions do not, by themselves, meet the requirements for a psychiatric injury claim.

There must also be a direct connection between the traumatic event and the psychiatric condition you have developed.

Witnessing a serious accident involving a stranger can be extremely distressing.

However, the absence of a close relationship with the injured person can create a significant obstacle to making a secondary victim claim.

The court will consider whether the claimant meets the requirements established in Alcock, including the need to demonstrate close ties of love and affection.

For someone who witnesses a traumatic incident involving a stranger, satisfying this requirement is likely to be difficult.

This highlights why the circumstances of the incident, rather than the seriousness of the psychological impact alone, are central to determining whether a claim may be possible.

The distinction between primary and secondary victims is central to understanding who may be entitled to compensation after a traumatic event.

It was established in the leading case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, which arose following the Hillsborough disaster in 1989.

The case involved claims from people who developed psychiatric injuries after witnessing the tragedy. Some had been present at the stadium, while others had watched events unfold on television or learned about what had happened through other people.

The House of Lords considered the circumstances in which people affected by a traumatic event could bring claims for psychiatric injuries.

The decision established an important distinction between two categories of claimant.

Primary victims

A primary victim is someone directly and immediately involved in a dangerous or traumatic event.

They may have suffered a physical injury alongside their psychiatric injury, although physical injury is not always necessary.

To make a claim, a primary victim must demonstrate that personal injury, whether physical or psychiatric, was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s negligence.

In simple terms, this means showing that the person responsible for the incident should reasonably have anticipated that their actions could cause injury.

During the Hillsborough disaster, people directly injured as a result of the overcrowding in the stands were considered primary victims.

Secondary victims

A secondary victim is someone who witnesses a traumatic event affecting another person but is not themselves exposed to the same immediate danger.

Although they may not suffer physical injuries, witnessing the event can cause psychiatric harm.

However, secondary victims face additional legal restrictions.

They must demonstrate that psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable in someone of reasonable mental fortitude. This means considering how a person with ordinary psychological resilience might have been affected by the circumstances.

They must also meet further requirements concerning their relationship with the person directly affected and how they experienced the event.

These restrictions mean that someone who witnesses a serious accident may develop a recognised psychiatric condition but still be unable to make a successful claim.

Witnessing a serious accident or tragedy can have a profound effect, even when you are not personally in danger.

However, experiencing psychiatric harm does not automatically establish a legal right to compensation.
People who witness traumatic incidents without being directly involved are sometimes described in legal proceedings as ‘mere bystanders’.

This can include someone who witnesses a disturbing event from a safe location but has no close relationship with the people involved.

Such a person may not qualify as a primary victim because they were not exposed to immediate danger.

They may also struggle to qualify as a secondary victim because they cannot demonstrate the required close relationship with the injured person.

Even where they have developed a recognised psychiatric condition, the legal restrictions may prevent them from making a successful claim.

A psychiatric injury claim requires a direct link between the traumatic event and the recognised psychiatric condition.

This is sometimes called ‘causation’.

In practical terms, it means establishing that the psychiatric condition developed as a result of the incident.

Medical evidence plays an important role in demonstrating the nature of the condition and its connection to what happened.

An independent medical expert will assess the claimant’s psychological symptoms to determine whether they amount to a recognised psychiatric injury.

However, medical evidence alone does not establish that a claim will succeed.

The claimant must also satisfy the relevant legal requirements for primary or secondary victims.

It may be possible to make a psychiatric injury claim even if you were not personally exposed to immediate danger during the traumatic event.

However, you would need to meet the requirements that apply to secondary victims.

These include demonstrating that psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable in someone of reasonable mental fortitude and satisfying the additional requirements established by the courts.

The key considerations include:

• Your relationship with the injured person: Whether you can demonstrate sufficiently close ties of love and affection.

• Your proximity to the event: Whether you were sufficiently close to the incident in both time and location.

• How you witnessed the event: Whether you experienced the incident directly through your own unaided senses.

You must also have medical evidence of a recognised psychiatric condition and establish a direct connection between that condition and the traumatic event.

If these requirements cannot be met, a claim may not succeed, even where the psychological consequences have been significant.

If you have developed a psychiatric condition after witnessing a serious accident or other traumatic event, understanding whether you can make a claim may be difficult.

The law recognises that psychiatric injuries can arise from traumatic experiences. However, it also places clear restrictions on the circumstances in which compensation can be recovered.

Whether you were directly involved in the incident, witnessed someone close to you being injured or observed an event from a place of safety can make an important difference.

At Fletchers Solicitors, we understand that the impact of a traumatic event is not always physical. Our personal injury specialists can help you understand the legal requirements for psychiatric injury claims and whether your circumstances may provide grounds for pursuing compensation.