The plaintiffs sought damages after watching television scenes of the football match at Hillsborough at which their two daughters died after disorder.
Held: Neither the risk of future injury nor anxiety at the prospect of future injury is actionable.
Judges:
Lord Templeman, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Citations:
[1991] UKHL 9, [1992] 2 All ER 65, [1992] PIQR P433
Links:
Statutes:
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, Administration of Justice Act 1982 3(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The Owners of the ‘P. Caland’ and Freight v Glamorgan Steamship Co Ltd HL 1893
There were concurrent findings on the question whether a vessel was showing a red light when it came into collision with another vessel. The House was asked to disturb the findings of fact.
Held: A mere finding of fact in which both the courts . .
Cited – Higgins v J and C M Smith (Whiteinch) Ltd HL 1990
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘Where there are concurrent findings of fact in the courts below generally this House will interfere with those findings only where it can be shown that both courts were clearly wrong. It is nothing to the point . .
Cited by:
Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248742