No damages for construction worker 'scarred' by Wembley Stadium death » Communities » 24dash.com

A man who suffered psychiatric injury after he saw a workmate die during the construction of the new Wembley Stadium lost his claim for damages today.

Stephen Monk, 43, of Braintree, Essex, was not physically hurt when a temporary working platform fell 60ft and hit two men working below, killing one and breaking the leg of another.

The self-employed foreman and first aider crawled underneath the platform to see if he could help the gravely injured man, but there was nothing he could do.

Turning his attention to the less injured man, he did his best to comfort him until the ambulance arrived.

It was not in dispute that the January 2004 accident caused serious harm to Mr Monk, said Deputy Judge George Leggatt QC, at London's High Court.

Although he went back to work after a week, thinking he could cope, what he had seen kept preying on his mind.

"One of the manifestations of Mr Monk's condition was that he became increasingly obsessed about safety on the site in case another accident should happen."

His anxiety was made all the worse because his concerns were dismissed as groundless.

He carried on as best as he could but inside he was in turmoil, and felt scared all the time. He had nightmares, and at times had suicidal thoughts.

In March 2005, Mr Monk left work early and has not worked since, despite various treatments for his post traumatic stress disorder, including therapy and anti-depressants.

The judge said that if Mr Monk's injury had been a direct physical injury, there would be no doubt about the liability of the defendant - construction company PC Harrington Ltd.

But, in cases of pure psychiatric illness, the law restricted the right to recover compensation to claimants who met certain limiting criteria.

He concluded that Mr Monk was not a "primary victim" of the negligent conduct of the crane operator for which PCH had admitted liability, because he did not satisfy the conditions necessary to be regarded either as a rescuer or as an "unwilling participant" in the accident.

"In my view, he was a 'secondary victim' whose post-traumatic stress disorder was caused by witnessing at first-hand the immediate aftermath of a fatal accident but who was not himself directly involved in the accident as a participant.

"In order to be entitled to recover damages from the defendant in these circumstances, Mr Monk would therefore need to satisfy the further conditions imposed as `control mechanisms' to limit recovery by secondary victims.

"However, although he satisfies two of the three conditions, Mr Monk did not have the close tie of love and affection for either of the physical victims of the accident which is a necessary requirement."