Active participants as primary victims: a forgotten categorisation

<p dir="ltr">Recovery for negligently-inflicted pure psychiatric harm is problematic in the UK. The range of foreseeable physical injury, or zone of danger, has emerged as the dominant test for primary victims. Despite a broader test of active participatory primary victimhood being recognised by the House of Lords in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, and referred to in some of the subsequent case law since then, it is a category that has largely disappeared from view. This article's critical analysis of existing UK authority, including Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd and Schofield v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, supports the argument for a broader understanding of the category of primary victim based upon participation. The strong practical utility of the test of active participatory primary victimhood, in both accident and non-accident type situations, is illustrated by considering the differing contexts of accidents at work and medical negligence. Following the limits that the Supreme Court in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust confirmed applied in cases of secondary victims, this article provides timely and instructive insights about the scope of the category of primary victims and calls for the more nuanced test of active participatory primary victimhood to be given more prominence. <p dir="ltr"><br> <p dir="ltr"><br>