Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912

Facts

• The case arose from a railway accident in Lewisham, near the home of the claimant, Henry Chadwick, who lived approximately 200 yards from the crash site.
• Following the accident, Mr. Chadwick voluntarily went to assist at the scene, spending the night helping rescue victims who were trapped.
• Mr. Chadwick developed serious psychiatric harm as a result of his exposure to the traumatic events, leaving him unable to work.
• After his subsequent unrelated death, his personal representatives brought a negligence claim against the British Railways Board (BRB), whose fault for the accident was not disputed.
• The BRB argued they owed no duty of care to rescuers who voluntarily intervened.
• The court had to assess whether a duty of care extended to such rescuers and whether psychiatric injury to them was a foreseeable consequence.

Issues

1. Whether the British Railways Board owed a duty of care in negligence to Mr. Chadwick as a rescuer present at the accident scene.
2. Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that rescuers could sustain psychiatric injury as a result of their assistance.
3. Whether rescuers such as Mr. Chadwick should be classified as primary victims capable of claiming for psychiatric harm.

Decision

• The court determined that the BRB owed a duty of care to Mr. Chadwick as a rescuer at the accident scene.
• It was held that it was reasonably foreseeable that individuals would attempt to help in the aftermath of a negligent accident and could suffer injury, including psychiatric harm, from such involvement.
• Mr. Chadwick was classified as a primary victim due to his direct and immediate involvement in the rescue, despite not being initially endangered by the accident.
• Damages were awarded for the psychiatric harm suffered by Mr. Chadwick as a direct consequence of the rescue efforts.

Legal Principles

• A duty of care may extend to rescuers who voluntarily assist in situations created by a defendant’s negligence if their presence and injury are reasonably foreseeable.
• Rescuers can be considered primary victims if their involvement is direct, immediate, and exposes them to potential harm or places them in a situation akin to physical danger.
• Psychiatric harm suffered by rescuers is not too remote and can be compensable in negligence if it arises from foreseeable consequences of the negligent act.
• Later case law, such as White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455, clarified that rescuers claiming for psychiatric harm must have been in actual or reasonably perceived physical danger, distinguishing it from situations such as in Chadwick.

Conclusion

Chadwick v British Railways Board affirmed that negligent parties owe a duty of care to rescuers for foreseeable psychiatric injury resulting from direct involvement at accident scenes, establishing rescuers as potential primary victims in negligence law.