Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 1997 |
| Date | 24 April 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Evans, Lord Justice Hobhouse and Lord Justice Hutchison
Damages - breach of statutory duty- psychiatric injury
An employee who suffered psychiatric illness after seeing a workmate electrocuted close to him could recover damages for breach of statutory duty under regulation 44(2) of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations (SI 1961 No 1580).
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment allowing an appeal by the plaintiff, Ian Young, against the dismissal by Sir Maurice Drake, sitting as a judge of the Queen's Bench Division on June 13, 1996, of his claim for damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty for psychiatric injuries sustained when working as a labourer for the second defendant, Southern Construction Services, on the land of the first defendant, Charles Church (Southern) Ltd.
Regulation 44 of the 1961 Regulations provides: "(2) Where any electrically charged overhead cable or apparatus is liable to be a source of danger to persons employed during the course of any operations or works to which these regulations apply…all practicable precautions shall be taken to prevent such danger…"
Mr Martin Porter for the plaintiff; Mr Guy Anthony for the defendants.
LORD JUSTICE EVANS said that the plaintiff claimed damages for a severe psychiatric illness which he had suffered since May 1989 following an accident at his place of work when a workmate alongside him had been electrocuted and killed.
His Lordship, having held that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff in damages for negligence at common law, turned to the alternative claim for breach of statutory duty.
The defendants admitted that they were in breach of regulation 44(2) of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dow v Amec Group Ltd
...[1999] 2 AC 455; [1998] 3 WLR 1509; [1999] 1 All ER 1; [1999] ICR 216; [1999] IRLR 110; 45 BMLR 1 Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd (1998) 39 BMLR 146 Textbooks etc referred to: Clerk, JF, and Lindsell, WHB, Torts (21st Jones ed, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2014), para 9.53 Health and Sa......
-
White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others
... ... Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of ... proceed cautiously from one category of case to another. We should be wise to heed the words of Windeyer J. spoken ... Charles Church (Southern) Ltd. ( unreported) 24 April 1997 , ... ...
-
Md Against Amec Group Limited
...recover for pure psychiatric injury for a breach of regulation in question. The case is Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd and Another 39 BMLR146.[62] § The facts can be seen from the headnote. § The regulation in question was regulation 44(2) of the Construction (General Provisions) Reg......
-
Reclaiming Motion By Melville Dow Against Amec Group Limited
...foreseeability and if it is not, it being reasonably foreseeable cannot alter that. [58] Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd (1998) 39 BMLR 146 which was relied on by the pursuer, and which would appear to be the only reported decision where there has been a finding of liability for psych......
-
Liability for Psychiatric Illness: Advancing Cautiously
...which, at the time of writing, is considering its judgment.3 See, for example, Frost, n 2 above; Young vCharles Church (Southern) Ltd (1997) 39 BMLR 146,CA; Hunter vBritish Coal Corporation [1998] 2 All ER 97, CA.4 Law Com No 249 March 1998 (hereafter, ‘the of compensation for personal inju......
-
Reforming Liability for Psychiatric Injury in Scotland: A Recipe for Uncertainty?
...[1943] AC 92, 110per LordWright; Page, n 23 above,180 per Lord Lloyd.29 Foran examplecase, seeYo u n g vCharles Church(Southern)Ltd (1997)39 BMLR146,where, however,liability was imposed in the light of Page.Donal Nolan987rThe Modern LawReview Limited forewarnedof a particular susceptibil it......