Second Thoughts

A mother came across the scene of a car accident, and later discovered the accident involved her son. Could she recover damages for nervous shock as a "secondary victim", significantly inflating her award? Martha Sarah Young v Arthur Macvean [2015] CSIH 70

The Issue

Regular readers will recall the earlier decision in this tragic case when the court ruled that Mrs Young could recover damages as a result of being a secondary victim, after happening across the aftermath of a car accident in which her son was killed.

Mr Macvean appealed on the basis that Mrs Young had wrongly been categorised as a secondary victim as the evidence indicated she had not been aware of her son being involved in the accident until she was advised later.

The Facts

Mrs Young was not a stranger to tragedy in her life. When she was twenty-one, her father had died of a sudden stroke. In 1992, her husband had died in a North Sea Helicopter accident. She told the court that before her husband had left for that job, he had reminded the then young David to look after his mother and sister while he was gone.

These tragedies had brought her and her son very close. David was, she said, "a model son" whom she saw nearly every day, and who was always trying to help her.

Rather unusually, on 1 June 2010, she and David had not seen one another for a few days, but had arranged to meet at their local gym in Glasgow. On the way there, she came across a horrific accident in which a car had been crumpled into a tree. She began thinking of the families of those involved and was relieved that her children could not be involved as David did not drive and her daughter was at home.

However, over the course of the morning, when David did not arrive at the gym, she became very anxious. She was eventually told by police that David had been killed in the accident when Mr Macvean's car had left the road and struck him.

The earlier decision held Mrs Young was a secondary victim. She had witnessed the immediate aftermath of the accident, and over a short period thereafter, a sense of dread had developed that her son was involved. This was then confirmed shortly after by the police.

Mr Macvean argued that her shock was caused not by witnessing the accident or its immediate aftermath, but by being told about the death. She did not realise at the time of seeing the wreckage that her son was involved; rather, she had been relieved to think her children could not be involved.

The line of authority...