<Li> It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of "normal fortitude" in the claimant's position would suffer psychiatric damage . The closer the tie between the claimant and the victim, the more likely it is that he would succeed in this element . However, once it is shown that some psychiatric damage was foreseeable, it does not matter that the claimant was particularly susceptible to psychiatric illness - the defendant must "take his victim as he finds him" and pay for all the consequences of nervous shock (see "Eggshell skull" rule). </Li> <P> The impact of this on the area of law once described as a' "patchwork quilt of distinctions which are quite difficult to justify" is significant because the decision made by the Law Lords was heavily influenced by the greater social concern of allowing a flood of claims with which the judicial system would not be able to cope (the "floodgates argument"). The decision has been criticised as being excessively harsh on the claimants, as well as not fully corresponding with medical knowledge regarding psychiatric illness brought about by nervous shock . Although reform has been widely advocated and a legislative proposal to mitigate some of the effects of Alcock was drafted by the Parliamentary Law Commission in 1998, the decision in Alcock represents the state of the law in the area of liability for psychiatric harm as it currently stands . </P>

Alcock v chief constable of west yorkshire police 1992 1 ac 310