Danielle Weddle Against Glasgow City Council
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff K J McGowan |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] SC EDIN 42 |
| Court | Sheriff Personal Injury Court (Scotland - United Kingdom) |
| Docket Number | PIC-PN2982-17 |
SHERIFFDOM OF LOTHIAN AND BORDERS AT EDINBURGH
IN THE ALL-SCOTLAND SHERIFF PERSONAL INJURY COURT
[2019] SC EDIN 42
PIC-PN2982-17
JUDGMENT OF SHERIFF KENNETH J MCGOWAN
in the cause
DANIELLE WEDDLE
Pursuer
against
GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL
Defender
Pursuer: Bain, QC; Wray, Advocate; Bonnar & Co
Defender: Smith, QC; McDougall, Solicitor-Advocate; BLM
Edinburgh, 30 April 2019
NOTE
Introduction
[1] This case concerns the recovery of damages for psychological or psychiatric injury,
usually referred to as ‘nervous shock’ in the older cases. At the risk of over simplifying the
position, where a person suffers physical injury as a result of an accident, then he or she falls
into the class of persons entitled to claim for damages for that injury. Where a person suffers
physical injury and a recognised psychological or psychiatric injury as a result of an accident,
then the person injured may make a claim for both the physical and mental effects of the
accident. In cases of either of these types, the question as to whether a claim for damages is
2
successful will depend on showing that the person who caused the accident – and hence the
consequent physical or physical and mental injury – was at fault.
[2] But what does the law say about cases where no physical injury is suffered but a
person affected (to use a neutral term) by an accident develops only mental harm in the form
of a recognised psychological or psychiatric condition, but suffers no physical injury?
[3] Claims for ‘mental harm only’ arise most often, though not exclusively, in the context
of bigger incidents, involving large numbers of people. Examples are the incidents on the
Piper Alpha oil-rig and at the Hillsborough football ground. In this area of law, the classes
of persons entitled to pursue a claim for damages are limited by the law for policy reasons.
Essentially, there are two classes of persons who are entitled to pursue claims where mental
harm, but no physical injury, has been suffered.
[4] Put broadly, the first class comprises persons directly involved in the accident. They
are known as primary victims. So a person who has been directly involved in an accident,
and who suffers mental harm but no physical injury as a result of that involvement, will be
entitled to damages (subject to establishing fault on the part of the person who caused the
accident). The second category comprises persons who were witnesses or by-standers and
who suffered mental harm as a result of what they observed. They are known as secondary
victims and ordinarily they will not be entitled to damages, unless they satisfy additional
criteria, such as having witnessed at close hand the death of a close family member.
[5] This case arises from the notorious ‘bin-lorry’ incident which occurred in central
Glasgow in December, 2014. The pursuer seeks damages for mental harm attributable to that
incident. The case came before me for proof. It was a matter of admission by the defender
that the driver of the bin-lorry, Clarke, had been negligent and that it was vicariously
responsible for his actings. It was not disputed that the pursuer had suffered mental harm in
3
the form of a recognised psychological injury, namely post traumatic stress disorder
(“PTSD”). The issue between the parties was whether the pursuer was a primary victim.
[6] The pursuer’s case is that she was a primary victim and, as such, falls within that
class of persons entitled to recover damages. The defender’s position is that she was not. The
decision on that matter depends on an analysis of the evidence and facts in the case and an
application of the legal principles developed by the superior courts – particularly the
Supreme Court – as to how the task of identifying primary victims should be carried out.
This is set out in more detail below.
[7] I heard evidence from the pursuer; her father, David Weddle; Mrs Michelle Wade, a
pharmacy employee; and Dr Fraser Morrison, a Clinical Psychologist. Certain other matters
were agreed in two joint minutes.
[8] The following authorities/sources were referred to or mentioned:
i. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] 1 AC 410
ii. Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Another 2000 SCLR 373;
iii. Collins v First Quench Retailing Ltd 2003 SLT 1220;
iv. King v Phillips [1953] 1 QB 429;
v. Leigh v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2014] 2 WLUK 650; 2014 EWHC
286 (QB);
vi. McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410;
vii. Page v Smith [1996] AC 155;
viii. Robertson v Forth Bridge 1995 SC 364;
ix. Wallace v Kennedy (1908) 16 SLT 485;
x. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455;
xi. Young v McVean 2014 SLT 934;
To continue reading
Request your trial