not originally within the area of danger, came into it later. In the third instance, he could only claim to be owed a duty of care by the defendant who created the danger if he came to the scene as a rescuer. His Lordship then continued, at p 11:

The plaintiff does not come into either of the first two categories, and Mr Hamilton submits that he does not come into the third. The Tharos never was in actual danger ... No one sustained any physical injury and there is no evidence that anyone other than the plaintiff sustained psychiatric injury. In my judgment it cannot be said that the defendants ought reasonably to have foreseen that the plaintiff or other non-essential personnel on board her would suffer such injury ... If indeed the plaintiff had felt himself to be in any danger, he could have taken refuge in or behind the helicopter hanger, which was where non-essential personnel were required to muster. The judge thought it was entirely understandable that the plaintiff and other non-essential personnel should wish to see what was happening on the Piper Alpha. I agree with this. What I do not agree with is that someone who was in truth in fear of his life from spread of the fire and falling debris should not take shelter. Only someone who is rooted to the spot through fear would be unable to do so. The plaintiff never suggested that; he accepted that he had moved about quite freely and could have taken shelter had he wished.