With Love and Affection: Rethinking the Fairness of Proximity of Relationship in Secondary Victim Claims
![handle is hein.journals/cambrilv10 and id is 122 raw text is:
With Love and Affection 115
CambridgeLawRewew(2025) Vol 10, Issue 1, 115-137
With Love and Affection: Rethinking the Fairness
of Proximity of Relationship in Secondary Victim
Claims
SANIYA MEHMOOD AKC*
ABSTRACT
Since the 1990s, English tort law has recognised the limited circumstances in which a claimant
is owed a duty of care for psychiatric injury caused by an accident that they were not directly
involved in. In particular, the eponymous Alcock control of 'proximity of relationship' man-
dates that a secondary victim must have a sufficiently close relationship with the participant in
the accident (the primary victim). This article examines the fairness of proximity of relation-
ship as a means of restricting claims in secondary victim cases, ultimately arguing that it re-
quires reform. Section II provides a doctrinal analysis of Alcock v Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, identifying three weaknesses within the judgment. Section
III provides a quantitative analysis of the case law on secondary victims since Alcock, revealing
how the courts have not always conformed to the requirements of proximity of relationship,
as well as analysing the role of the 'sudden shock' requirement and gender stereotypes in
exacerbating the unfairness of this control mechanism. Thereafter, Section IV explores and
compares alternative avenues for reform of this control mechanism, including both conserva-
tive and radical changes.
Keywords: negligence, psychiatricinjury secondary victims, Alcock controls, proximity ofre-
lationship
I. INTRODUCTION
In the tort of negligence, for a defendant to be held liable for a wrong committed against a
claimant, the claimant must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that this duty
was breached, and that the breach caused the harm suffered by the claimant (and that this
damage was not too remote).' For a claim of pure psychiatric harm, the same must be proved,
but claimants face additional hurdles as 'secondary victims'. As opposed to 'primary victims',
who are subject to less stringent controls on the basis that they were in the zone of danger and
* BA (King's College London), MA Law (Conversion) (The University of Law). I am grateful to the reviewers for their
thoughtful comments. Any remaining errors are my own.
Donoghue vStevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL); Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd vMorts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The
Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 (PC).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/cambrilv10&div=11&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
With Love and Affection: Rethinking the Fairness of Proximity of Relationship in Secondary Victim Claims
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most