The occurrence of tragic accidents can affect not only those directly involved, but frequently those dearest to them.

The law recognises this. That said, the scope of redress for such ‘Secondary Victims’, from the original tortfeasor, is notably narrow.

Save for a brief recap on the key legal principles, this article does not intend to delve into the law around Secondary Victim claims. Rather, it intends to set out practical tips for those involved in litigating them. Nothing herein is intended as legal advice.

Secondary Victim Claims – A Reminder on the Key Law

Claims for the ‘nervous shock’ of ‘Secondary Victims’ were addressed in the key case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310. In short, the Court required that:

  1. The individual must have a close tie of love and affection to the physically injured Primary Victim;
  2. The Secondary Victim’s shock must arise from a sudden and unexpected shock to their nervous system, amounting to recognised psychiatric injury; and
  3. The Secondary Victim’s injury must come from seeing or hearing the event itself or its aftermath. There must be physical proximity between the event and the Secondary Victim’s perception of it, in terms of both time and space.

The Secondary Victim’s psychiatric injury must be foreseeably caused by the ‘shock’ of what they have witnessed (see Page v Smith [1996] AC 155). Additionally, the event must be horrifying according to objective standards of a person with ordinary susceptibility.

An example of where such a claim was allowed is McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410. The claimant saw her husband and children in hospital two hours after their accident, and it was held that the sights and sounds experienced by the claimant were sufficiently close in time and nature to the accident itself.

There is, however, a line of cases highlighting the restricted scope for such claims. For instance, in Taylor v Somerset Health Authority [1993] PIQR 0262, the claimant’s husband suffered a heart attack and the claimant arrived at hospital within the hour, before then identifying her husband’s body at the mortuary. This lacked sufficient proximity. In Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194, a claimant who was not present at the time of the original incident, witnessing instead her mother’s death occur three weeks later, was not held to have sufficient physical proximity.

More recently, the Supreme Court in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2025] AC 459 addressed whether Secondary Victims can claim for injury caused by witnessing the death of injury of a close relative caused, not by an accident, but from a medical condition which treating clinicians negligently failed to diagnose and treat.

The Court found (by a majority, with Lord Burrows dissenting) that the answer to this question is “no”, and that an “external event” causing injury to the primary victim is required for such a Secondary Victim claim to be successful.

This is because of the key requirement for Secondary Victims to have witnessed the accident, or its immediate aftermath. The Supreme Court also emphasised the need for an independent duty of care to be established to a Secondary Victim, stating clearly that medical professionals owe no duty to protect people from witnessing the death of their relatives.

By its decision, the Supreme Court has further considerably narrowed the scope for potential Secondary Victim claims, particularly in the context of clinical negligence.

The standards, therefore, are exacting. How should practitioners deal with them?

Be Alert to Clients’ Relatives

Practically speaking, the most likely way a practitioner is to encounter a potential ‘Secondary Victim’ is when dealing with the personal injury claim for the ‘primary victim’, i.e. the individual who suffered the initial tragic event.

When dealing with a ‘primary victim’ client, practitioners may become aware of close relatives or partners who are suffering with the aftermath of their client’s injuries. They may attend your offices with the primary victim client for meetings. They may be mentioned by the primary victim client in passing. They may even approach a practitioner directly.

With this in mind, an open but discerning eye is recommended. Listen carefully to their stories if they are shared. How close are they to your client? What involvement did they have in your client’s accident circumstances?

Practitioners may find themselves able to discern a potential claim even from these initial interactions, or at least conclude that further investigation is warranted.

Of course, there may be circumstances in which referral for separate representation is appropriate. Again, the discerning eye is crucial.

An Early (But Detailed) Meeting

You have now identified a potential ‘Secondary Victim’ to an incident and consider yourself able to represent them. At this stage, as much background information as possible will greatly assist.

It is recommended that practitioners meet with the ‘Secondary Victim’ client as early as possible, and earmark sufficient time to talk through their circumstances in detail. A short discussion will rarely suffice. Nor will a telephone discussion. An in-person meeting is ideal, though a video call may be sufficient if necessary.

In this meeting, it is recommended that practitioners obtain as much information as possible regarding the Secondary Victim’s relationship to the primary victim and their own circumstances. Such important topics include:

  1. What is their relationship to the primary victim? If they are a partner, how long have they known the primary victim? Do they live together? Are they married/engaged? If they are the child or parent of the primary victim, what does their relationship with them look like ‘day-to-day’? How often do they see each other? Do they live together or near to each other?
  2. How did they come to hear of the primary victim’s incident? What was relayed to them, how and by whom? How far after the incident was this, and how they react?
  3. Were they present at the incident? If so, what did they observe? If not, did they attend the incident site at any later stage? If so, when, and what did they perceive then?
  4. Did they attend hospital where the primary victim was conveyed? If so, when and what did they observe there? How did they react?
  5. Has there been any longer-term impact on the secondary victim? If so, what?
  6. Has the secondary victim sought any treatment for their symptoms?

The list goes on, and the necessary questions will be tailored to each individual case. However, such information as this will be crucial in identifying whether there is a relationship of close love and affection, as well as proximity to the original incident.

Be Prepared to Committedly Advise

Following your preliminary investigations, a view needs to be taken on each case, and a discerning eye should be followed with clear, robust advice – whatever the prospects may be.

Give Clear, Focused Instructions to Your Experts

The expert evidence is a crucial stage of building a Secondary Victim claim. It must identify:

  1. The nature of the harm suffered (i.e. whether it is more than de minimis);
  2. The cause of that harm (i.e. whether it was caused by the Secondary Victim seeing or hearing the primary victim’s incident itself or its aftermath).

Firstly, a suitably qualified expert should be identified. If a particular area of psychological injury is engaged (for example, if your Secondary Victim is a child) then a more specialised psychological expert may well be warranted. Detailed consideration of proposed experts’ CVs is suggested, to identify the right expert for the case.

It is recommended that letters of instruction to experts be sharply focused on these issues. Experts should be invited to comment specifically on the harm suffered against the background of the “primary event”.

Issues can often arise with causation. A vague or ambiguously worded opinion can cause difficulty when trying to establish that the Secondary Victim’s injuries arose directly from the incident or its aftermath. This can be avoided by directly pointing out to your expert, the specific events in question and asking them to consider, on the balance of probabilities, whether these events are the cause of the injury.

Check (And Double Check) Your Experts’ Reports

Even the most focused of instructions can sometimes lead to an unclear expert’s opinion. This is why a thorough proofread is essential. When reviewing your expert’s draft, look out for:

  1. What have they diagnosed?
  2. What is the prognosis?
  3. What specifically has caused this injury? Is it the perception of the actual event or aftermath, or is it some other related matter?

It may be that your expert attributes the Secondary Victim’s injuries to a factor which may appear like the ‘aftermath’ but which is, in fact, too far removed. This might include the worry of the primary victim’s longer term health implications, or their need for care. Such matters, whilst understandably flowing from a relative’s primary injury, are unlikely to have sufficient proximity to be treated as the ‘aftermath’ in line with Alcock.

If the initial draft report is opaque, it may be that a clarification could clear matters up. Conversely, if discussions with your expert still leave you with a difficult opinion, then a view should be taken about where this leaves the claim.

Identifying these issues at an early stage will stand you in good stead later down the line.

Conclusion

Whilst the scope for Secondary Victim claims is restricted, successful claims can be fruitfully mounted with proactive discernment, early identification of the facts and careful consideration of expert evidence.

Download this page
Back to Top