employer being liable for causing psychiatric injury. YOUNG v CHARLES CHURCH (SOUTHERN) LTD AND ANOTHER (1997) THE TIMES, 1 MAY This interesting decision of the Court of Appeal is only to be found briefly reported in The Times. It was held that an employee who suffered psychiatric illness after seeing a workmate electrocuted close to him could recover damages for breach of statutory duty under regulation 44(2) of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations 1961 (SI 1961/1580). The claimant’s workmate was killed when the equipment he was carrying touched an electrically charged overhead cable. This fatal accident was undoubtedly caused by the defendant employers’ breach of the regulation which provides: ‘Where any electrically charged overhead cable or apparatus is liable to be a source of danger to persons employed during the course of any operations or works to which these regulations apply ... all practicable precautions shall be taken to prevent such danger ...’ The view of the court appears to have been that the defendants were in breach of duty not only to the deceased but also to the claimant who like the deceased had been put at risk by their breach of duty. Thus their liability to him was not so much for the shock of seeing his workmate killed, but for the shock of realising that he rather than the deceased might have been the victim. The case is especially interesting because the trend of cases has been to deny redress to an employee who suffers psychiatric illness as a consequence of seeing his workmate killed.

DOI link for employer being liable for causing psychiatric injury. YOUNG v CHARLES CHURCH (SOUTHERN) LTD AND ANOTHER (1997) THE TIMES, 1 MAY This interesting decision of the Court of Appeal is only to be found briefly reported in The Times. It was held that an employee who suffered psychiatric illness after seeing a workmate electrocuted close to him could recover damages for breach of statutory duty under regulation 44(2) of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations 1961 (SI 1961/1580). The claimant’s workmate was killed when the equipment he was carrying touched an electrically charged overhead cable. This fatal accident was undoubtedly caused by the defendant employers’ breach of the regulation which provides: ‘Where any electrically charged overhead cable or apparatus is liable to be a source of danger to persons employed during the course of any operations or works to which these regulations apply ... all practicable precautions shall be taken to prevent such danger ...’ The view of the court appears to have been that the defendants were in breach of duty not only to the deceased but also to the claimant who like the deceased had been put at risk by their breach of duty. Thus their liability to him was not so much for the shock of seeing his workmate killed, but for the shock of realising that he rather than the deceased might have been the victim. The case is especially interesting because the trend of cases has been to deny redress to an employee who suffers psychiatric illness as a consequence of seeing his workmate killed.

employer being liable for causing psychiatric injury. YOUNG v CHARLES CHURCH (SOUTHERN) LTD AND ANOTHER (1997) THE TIMES, 1 MAY This interesting decision of the Court of Appeal is only to be found briefly reported in The Times. It was held that an employee who suffered psychiatric illness after seeing a workmate electrocuted close to him could recover damages for breach of statutory duty under regulation 44(2) of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations 1961 (SI 1961/1580). The claimant’s workmate was killed when the equipment he was carrying touched an electrically charged overhead cable. This fatal accident was undoubtedly caused by the defendant employers’ breach of the regulation which provides: ‘Where any electrically charged overhead cable or apparatus is liable to be a source of danger to persons employed during the course of any operations or works to which these regulations apply ... all practicable precautions shall be taken to prevent such danger ...’ The view of the court appears to have been that the defendants were in breach of duty not only to the deceased but also to the claimant who like the deceased had been put at risk by their breach of duty. Thus their liability to him was not so much for the shock of seeing his workmate killed, but for the shock of realising that he rather than the deceased might have been the victim. The case is especially interesting because the trend of cases has been to deny redress to an employee who suffers psychiatric illness as a consequence of seeing his workmate killed.