SponsoredBuild your website with Vincony

면책조항: 이것은 법률 자문이 아닙니다. 법률과 판례는 변경됩니다. 귀하의 특정 상황에 대해 항상 자격을 갖춘 변호사와 상담하십시오.

UK Law Reference
모든 판례
Tort Law
Queen's Bench Division
1967

Chadwick v British Railways Board

[1967] 1 WLR 912

판결 이유

A rescuer who suffers psychiatric injury from the horrifying scenes encountered during rescue operations may recover damages from the party whose negligence caused the original accident, provided the rescuer was exposed to personal danger.

사실관계

Mr Chadwick lived near the site of the Lewisham rail disaster (1957). He spent 12 hours crawling through wreckage helping injured and dying passengers. He subsequently developed severe anxiety and depression.

판결 요약

Waller J held that the British Railways Board was liable to Mr Chadwick for the psychiatric illness he developed after spending the night giving assistance among the wreckage of the Lewisham train disaster, which had been caused by the Board's negligence. It was reasonably foreseeable that a serious railway accident might prompt bystanders to come to the rescue, and a tortfeasor whose negligence imperils others owes a duty of care to those who foreseeably attempt a rescue. Mr Chadwick had gone into the wreckage, working in cramped and dangerous conditions among the dead and dying, and the horror of that experience caused him recognisable psychiatric injury that was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence. His claim did not fail merely because his injury was psychiatric rather than physical, or because he was a volunteer. The decision was later explained in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, where the House of Lords held that Chadwick recovered as a primary victim who was himself exposed to physical danger, rather than on the basis of any special 'rescuer' exception to the ordinary rules on psychiatric harm.

주요 인용문

"It has long been recognised that a tortfeasor who injures others may foresee that those injuries may lead to attempts at rescue."

Waller J

후속 처리

Qualified

In White v Chief Constable [1999], the House of Lords clarified that Chadwick succeeded because he was in personal physical danger, not simply because he was a rescuer.