Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

McFarlane v EE Caledonia

[1994] 2 All ER 1

Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 10:53 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case McFarlane v EE Caledonia

P was a painter on an oil rig where there was an explosion and fires killing many people. He claimed for nervous shock as a primary victim. CA reject his claim on grounds that he could easily have taken cover/removed himself from situation, and it was not reasonably foreseeable that he would have been harmed. 
 
CA: in addition to proximity (satisfied- he was 100m from the fire) and reasonable foreseeability that an ordinary man in P’s position would suffer psychiatric injury, he had to prove one of 3 possible conditions for personal safety fear requirement: (1) he was in the actual area of danger created by the event, even though he escaped; (2) although not in danger he reasonably thought he was because of the unexpected nature of the event; (3) He came into danger area as a rescuer
 
Stuart Smith LJ contests the assertion of Lord Ackner (above) and says that to allow simple bystanders with no connection to those being harmed would be to create a test purely based on reasonable foreseeability because it would allow too many people to claim nervous shock e.g. if a building falls down. However in this case it was not reasonably foreseeable that an ordinary man in P’s position would suffer nervous shock. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>