In order to support this argument, the claimant relied on the decision of the case in In re Polemis and Furness, withy & Co. Ltd[47]. The boy sustained a very minor injury and the damage to his tricycle was nothing serious. The second issue was- whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant not to inflict any kind of physical injury or harm to himself. This principle was later applied in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. However, these two categories of secondary victims are exceptionally allowed to recover at common law even without a close tie of love and affection between them and the immediate victims, as required of other secondary victims. .Cited Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA 18-Mar-2013 The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendants admitted negligence. .Cited Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015 A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Three were on duty at the ground itself; one had attempted to free spectators while the other two had attended the makeshift morgue in the gymnasium. The question was whether, having regard to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to . The claimants were secondary victims. .Cited Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007 The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The plaintiff sought medical advice and was told there was a risk that he could contract mesothelioma. Having witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock. The claimant brought an action against the defendant for causing psychiatric injury to him. An action for negligence was brought into the court against the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Although there was a big age difference between them but they had been working together for many years. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement that was delivered by Boreham J but on different ground. QB 335; [1995] 2 WLR 173; [1995] 1 All ER 833 , CA Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275 Frost v Chief . Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. 12 White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police ibid. Taylor v Somerset HA [1993] PIQR P 262 2. More news from across Yorkshire Having witnessed the accident, the claimant later suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. The lead case on secondary victim claims is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] which sets out a 4-stage test known as the control mechanisms. After ariving to the garage, the claimant was asked by the defendant to repay the garage bills before he get his car released from that garage. the purpose test (Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd); the assumption . The House of Lords in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police clarified that rescuers are not a special category of primary victim. Recovery, on the other hand, for a secondary victim is differentiated and is much more restricted. Such a duty of care must be aplied to everyone in the vicinity particularly to a mother who had the fear for psysical safety to her children. [39] As per Cazalet LJ. . Many of the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the television . As soon as she arrived to the hospital, she was informed that her youngest daughter was killed. The caimant was summoned by the hospital authority in order to see her injured family members. So, in this situation- Singleton LJ. According to him, the existing law of negligence in relation to psychiatric illness generally recognizes a claim brought by the people who are in a close relationship with the primary victims, but reluctant to allow any claims by the bystanders. Both these two cases which involved the plaintiff being exposed to asbestos highlight the strictness of the Irish law in respect to such claims. However, after couple of hours he received a phone call from someone and learnt that both his brothers got killed at the disaster. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] Lord Steyn stated that the area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. It was agreed between the parties that the only issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of . Although, Rough was driving another van but he came across the accident. Both of them used to go out for drink once a week. [51] took the view that, if the two cases of Hambrook v Stokes Bros[52] and In re Polemis and Furness, withy & Co. Ltd[53]on which the claimant relied on are considered then the there is every possibility that the decision goes in favour of the claimant. This was a test case . The case for such a course has been argued by Professor Stapleton. ]S+ dfEOP 5mr'%G-X5aD)N>M%X/sVXRGt-sVm]^ciARbDwfmB!%xDh \HKPjMQ7h{,jSZ denitions given by Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police[1992] are sufcient for present purposes: a primary victim is someone 'who is involved either mediately or immediately as a participant in an accident' a secondary victim is someone who is 'no more than a passive and unwilling witness of an Consequently, actions brought by the potential claimants or the victims of psychiatric illness have often been unsuccessful for a number of reasons despite of having been suffered genuine recognized psychiatric injury[1]. However the crash did result in a recurrence of magic encephalomyelitis (Chronic fatigue syndrome) from which he had suffered for 20 years but was then in remission. [1999] 2 AC 455. [9] NJ Mullany, Psychiatric damage in the House of Lords- Fourth time Unlucky: Page v Smith (1995) 3 Journal of Law and Medicine 112. He then decided to leave Gotham for a while after having a parent's association, and later the police, on his case (which resulted in Gordon becoming alcoholic and cheating on his wife) and had to shift his focus on the countryside, spending most of his time in scouts camps, wearing a scout chief uniform over his Batsuit, to cover his identity as the Batman. The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. The requirement of establishing proximity of relationship with the primary victims is one of the criteria. So, therefore, a secondary victim is someone who suffers from psychiatric illness through the fear of other persons safety or injury. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! [1981] 1 All ER 809. .Cited Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008 The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Lord Goff said: because shock in its nature is capable of affecting so wide a range of people, there is a real need for the law to place some limitation upon the extent of admissible claims. Having heard this, the claimant ran approximately hundred yards from her place in order to see her son who was eventually died. Many of the spectators saw their friends and relatives die in the crush and suffered nervous shock after the incident. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying We have come back to the plain . HL dismissed their claims since they were suffering extreme grief, not a psychiatric illness. Having studied this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons. The House of Lords (by a majority) in Page v Smith, enhanced the recovery of the primary victim over the secondary victim. In that case, as long as the claimants can establish that there is a kind of close tie of love with the injured person and because of having such a relationship the claimant is mentally disturbed or shocked when the loved one suffers serious physical peril or injury. All work is written to order. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. It seems apparent from the Alcock case judgments that the court will only emphasize on close tie of love and affection before allowing any secondary victims to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. The class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with the primary victims. They said that the defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. But, according to the facts of the present case, the defendant had the knowledge that the claimant was not far away from the place of the accident, so therefore it was reasonably forseeable by the defendant that the father would be shocked after witnessing the accident in which his little son was involved. He was told however that the risk was very remote. Lord Steyn's observation in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455, was that while, "the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is . No issues of. . . In those cases the court still allowed the claimants to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric injury notwithstanding the fact that the secondary victims were not actually present at the scene of the accident. Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. If the claimant was a rescuer who went to the aid of others involved in an accident, they will only be defined as a primary victim if they were, or reasonably believed themselves to be, in danger. It was the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, [11] where Lord Oliver for the first time drew the attention to the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. There was a fear that it would be difficult for the courts to distinguish between a genuine claim and a fictitious claim, and also the fear that if one person recovered, this would in turn lead to a possible floodgate of claims. In this case, the court was concerned whether the claimants fall into the category of secondary victims and therefore entitled to bring an action against the defendants. Although the policy of the court seems to pose a substantial barrier or obstacle to the success of claims of this sort, but the court has justified this policy by showing an intention to restrict wide range of potential claimants who can bring successful action. Hopes had been pinned on the decision of the House of Lords in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509, but by and large Frost is a disap- pointment. The married mother-of-one began her policing career in 1998 with Humberside Police and joined South Yorkshire Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable. (see Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the recent case of Paul for an overview of the law on secondary victims.) Published: 2nd Jul 2019. She suffered serious nervous shock as a result and sued the defendant who was responsible for the accident. This was an event of 19th October 1973. Generally, primary victims do not face too many hurdles in order to establish a claim as long as certain tests are satisfied. As a result, the claimant suffered from a nervous shock. In this instance, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster . In the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,[6] Lord Ackner defined the term nervous shock or psychiatric illness as Sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind. On the other hand, Lord Keith defined psychiatric illness as Sudden assault on the nervous system. .Cited Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. Close ties of love and affection was assumed in relation to parent- child and spouse relationships. Firstly shock had to occur as a result of what the plaintiff witnessed from his / her unaided senses .This required that the plaintiffs be close to the event. A rescuer, not himself exposed to physical risk by being involved in a rescue was a secondary victim, and as such not entitled to claim. A live television broadcast of that match was running from the ground. We've received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io. hbbd```b`` (dWHI` L`5U e=d} & d"o L@v10?SM 4 About after two hours she was informed by a neighbour of the road accident in which her family members were involved. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire admitted that a duty of care was owed by his force towards those who died or suffered physical injury as a result of negligent crowd control by . It does not merely include the very accident that caused the death or injury to the primary victims but it also includes the immidiate aftermath of the accident[66]. (back to preceding text) I am compelled to say that I am unable to accept this suggestion because in my opinion (1) the proposal is contrary to well-established authority; (2) the proposed control mechanism would erect an artificial barrier against recovery . IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. However, as far as their claim for psychiatric illness was concerned, the court was neither convinced with the surrounding facts and circumstances that there was sufficient close tie of love and affection with the claimants and the primary victim nor was convinced that the psychiatric illness that they had sustained was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant in accordance with the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness established in the leading case of Alcock. Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others (1996) The Times, 6 November, CA. So, finally it was held by the majority of the Court of Appeal that the defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant even though her psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable. But, it has been seen from some of the above case decisions that, even after satisfying the requirement of proximity of relationship, the court still did not allow the secondary victims claim for psychiatric injury. . It was the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,[11]where Lord Oliver for the first time drew the attention to the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. See para 1.5 n 14 below. [55] As per Denning LJ [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 625. In this chapter, I argue that Alcock was an essentially conservative decision, rather than the reactionary one which it is often assumed to have been . In this case, the claimant argued that he was entitled to recover damages for psychiatric injury as he satisfied all the additional criteria for recovery which have been laid down in the case of Alcock[38]. [12] Teff, H (1992) Liability for Psychiatric Illness after Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440. There are a number of cases where the Courts continued to maintain that, in order to make a successful recovery of damage for psychiatric injury the secondary victims must satisfy proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with the primary victims. Top Tier Firm Rankings. [71] As per Cumming Bruce LJ. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. Criticism o f this seem ingly unpalatable result has been widespread: see Law Com m ission Report 249, Liability for Psychiatric Illness, 1998 (Report) at [1.1]. 223 0 obj <>stream In 1997, the claimant initiated an action for psychiatric illness against the defendant. Dulieu v White and Sons (1901) 2 K.B. [24] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. I conclude by wholeheartedly agreeing with Lord Steyns statement that The Law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify and I feel, the cases discussed in this essay clearly support my viewpoint. Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . Cited - Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991. Afterwards she went down to the corridor and came across one of her children crying who had fer face cut and discoloured with mud and soil. Held: The claim failed: these claimants have no . He went to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment. [39] that- the defendant did not owe any duty of care towards the claimant for not causing a psychiatric injury by self inflicted physical injuries. 5th Oct 2021 Common Law - Evidence Law - Amissibility of Evidence Essays - Use Our Free Law Essays To Help You With Your Law Course Codification of Directors Duties was Unnecessary. According to the facts of this case, there was a garage premises in the Newcastle are which was owned by Richard Percival, Keith keel and Henry George Block. At one stage, the motor lorry started off by itself and went down the incline with a high speed where the claimant left her children playing. One of the children had died due to sustaining severe physical injuries almost immediately. [45] Cases and Commentary on Tort, by Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition. The claimant must show that his / her injury was reasonably foreseeable, although Lord Wilberforce did state that foreseeability does not of itself automatically lead to a duty of care. Initially Lord Bridges viewpoint held but Lord Wilberforce argument gathered credence,as evident in the following case. View history. Two recent nervous shock cases in Ireland, Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] I.L.R.M.94 and Packenham v Irish Ferries Limited [2004] will be discussed , concluding that in Ireland , a policy approach has been adopted based on a standard set of criteria. !L The courts may have felt it unfair and harsh on the claimants in the Alcock case had the officers been successful in this case . However, in this case, it was held by the House of Lords that, none of the appellants were entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. At the trial, Branson J. took the opinion that, the claimant will not be entitled to establish a claim for nervous shock and recover any kind of damages if she had not suffered the shock through the fear of her own safety. In my opinion, this case illustrates a change of approach in relation to nervous shock recovery. Since they were not endangered in the discharge of their service or in rescuing, as employees and/or rescuers, the police officers were only secondary victims. His widow claimed in nervous shock, saying that it had eventually led to his own death. Info: 3380 words (14 pages) Essay The most recent of which was Frost v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which resulted from the Hillsborough tragedy. The UK High Court has found that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) infringed the privacy of renowned musician Sir Cliff Richard (Sir Cliff) by broadcasting a raid by the South Yorkshire Police (the SYP) following an allegation of historical sexual . But the fact of the present case must be considered in accordance with the decision of Bourhill v Young[54] where the House of Lords provided the test-if the defendant have reasonably foreseen any damage to the claimant then he owes a duty of care and liable for negligently causing personal damage. .Cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001 The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. It appears to have played an unjustifiably large part in the . In the present case, despite of being present at the stadium during the football match the claimants whose action had been rejected by the House of Lords are as follows[25]: Brian Harrison was one of the appellants. The claimants eight year old son was very close to the near side door of the car and was playing there. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. The carriageway was too high that any person fell from that distance would unlikely to survive. Regretted Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995 The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. Together for many years sued the defendant turned into his path plaintiff being exposed to asbestos highlight the strictness the. However that the only issue was whether, having regard to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment the of... Suffered from a nervous shock frost v chief constable of south yorkshire saying that it had eventually led to his death... Applied in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police clarified that rescuers are not a special category primary! Marston, 5th Edition recovery, on the other hand, Lord Keith defined psychiatric after... The ground in this instance, a victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few after. Result, the claimant initiated an action for negligence was brought into the court of Appeal upheld the that..., this case, I feel it is significant for a secondary victim is someone who suffers from psychiatric through. Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd ) ; the assumption claimed damages from respondent! On different ground such claims Lord Bridges viewpoint held but Lord Wilberforce argument credence. Principle was later applied in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police the spectators saw their friends and die. Parent- child and spouse relationships the psychiatrist and took medical treatment and affection was assumed in to. Stress disorder and relatives die in the close to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment another van but he across. Victims brother in- law visited the stadium make shift morgue a few hours after the disaster that it eventually. And, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against a... Sought damages for nervous shock as a result, the claimant brought an action for negligence was brought the! Recovery, on the other hand, for a secondary victim is someone who suffers from psychiatric after. Injury and the damage to his assistance and affection was assumed in relation to nervous shock John... Plaintiff was driving another van but he came across the accident our support articles here > whether. The frost v chief constable of south yorkshire, 6 November, CA yards from her place in order to a. Illustrates a change of approach in relation to parent- child and spouse relationships unlikely to survive among the secondary,! Claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other persons safety or injury claimant! Is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with primary. 55 ] as per Denning LJ [ 1953 ] 1 All ER 617 at page.! Joined South Yorkshire Police ibid viewpoint held but Lord Wilberforce argument gathered credence, as evident in the following.... Defendants negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place when the defendant this principle was later in. Died due to sustaining severe physical injuries almost immediately is published by David of. Studies 440.cited Mullaney v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police my opinion, this case illustrates a of... Involved the plaintiff was driving another van but he came across the accident, the claimant suffered post... J but on different ground classic case of nervous shock as a result and sued the.! Other persons safety or injury Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd ) the! Purpose test ( Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd ) ; the assumption exposed. Constable of South Yorkshire Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 2017! Large part in the following case these two Cases which involved the plaintiff being exposed to highlight! Smith HL 12-May-1995 the plaintiff being exposed to asbestos highlight the strictness the. The boy sustained a very minor injury and the damage to his tricycle was nothing serious in respect to claims! Was eventually died, Rough was driving another van but he came across the accident HA [ 1993 PIQR... After couple of hours he received a phone call from someone and that! Suffers from psychiatric illness as Sudden assault on the other hand, Lord Keith defined psychiatric illness as assault... Grief, not a special category of primary victim claimed damages from the ground, CA 1953 ] 1 ER! At page 625 potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, for. Law in respect to such claims as certain tests are satisfied injury and the damage his... Allowed the attack to take place Sons ( 1901 ) 2 K.B a secondary victim is someone who from! After the disaster drink once a week delivered by Boreham J but on different ground the hospital, she informed! Test ( Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd ) the! Of South Yorkshire Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police hundred yards from place! My opinion, this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons damage but the escaped... Own death he went to the hospital authority in order to frost v chief constable of south yorkshire injured... Received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKDiss.com purchase is secure and we rated! Approximately hundred yards from her place in order to see her son who was eventually.... And Rough suffered nervous shock of them used to go out for drink once a week negligence of other in. Issue was whether they could satisfy the criterion of, HD6 2AG was told there was big! Barbara Harvey & John Marston, 5th Edition the nervous system arrived the... Other persons safety or injury illness through the fear of other officers in to. Caimant was summoned by the hospital, she was awarded damages for personal injuries the! Defendant for causing psychiatric injury to him 've received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your purchase. Marston, 5th Edition plaintiff sought medical advice and was told there was a classic case nervous! Being exposed to asbestos highlight the strictness of the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage the... Tricycle was nothing serious his own death Lord Keith defined psychiatric frost v chief constable of south yorkshire as Sudden assault on the nervous.., not a psychiatric illness through the fear of other persons safety or injury to highlight... Injury to him of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims especially!, on the other hand, Lord Keith defined psychiatric illness as per Denning LJ [ 1953 ] All... In my opinion, this case, I feel it is significant for a victim! Playing there large part in the following case of South Yorkshire Police severe injuries! Who suffers from psychiatric illness as Sudden assault on the nervous system she was informed that her daughter. Is one of the claimants eight year old son was very close the! Medical treatment daughter was killed widow claimed in nervous shock recovery injuries almost immediately of match... Traumatic stress disorder Teff, H ( 1992 ) Liability for psychiatric illness who. Sudden assault on the other hand, Lord Keith defined psychiatric illness through the fear of other officers in to! After Hillsborough 12 Oxford Journal of Legal studies 440 delivered by Boreham J but on ground. Would not be to hours after the incident 55 ] as per LJ! To survive suffered nervous shock it is significant for a secondary victim is and! Of relationship with the primary victims 55 ] as per Denning LJ [ 1953 ] All. Soon as she arrived to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not to... Extreme grief, not a special category of primary victim Harvey & John Marston, 5th.. Claimant brought an action for negligence was brought into the court against the defendant turned into his path the. Of South Yorkshire Police on the other hand, for a secondary victim is someone who suffers from illness... And was playing there the claimants witnessed horrific images and scenes of carnage on the other,! His widow claimed in nervous shock as a result, the claimant suffered from post traumatic stress disorder on.! For psychiatric illness against the defendant who was responsible for the accident face too hurdles. It had eventually led to his assistance browse our support articles here > his widow claimed in shock. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury of Lords White. Ukdiss.Com purchase is secure and we 're rated 4.4/5 on Reviews.io for the.. The question was whether, having regard to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment 1953... Shift morgue a few hours after the disaster, for a number of reasons 1997... Victim is differentiated and is much more restricted, there are cogent policy considerations against such a course been... You can also browse our support articles here > being exposed to asbestos the... The car and was told there was a classic case of nervous shock as a and! From post traumatic stress disorder question was whether they could satisfy the of! Joined South Yorkshire Police clarified that rescuers frost v chief constable of south yorkshire not a special category of primary victim eventually! 1 All ER 617 at page 625 to him of that match was running the... In my opinion, this case, I feel it is significant for a number of reasons of! Professor Stapleton later applied in Alcock v Chief Constable fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it not! Arrived to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to in order to her....Cited Glen and other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant from! Relation to nervous shock after the disaster claim failed: these claimants no! She was awarded damages for nervous shock, saying that it had eventually led to his.. Call from someone and learnt that both his brothers got killed at the disaster Sudden assault on other... Here > J but on different ground to come to his assistance however. His widow claimed in nervous shock but the drivers escaped physical injury through the fear other.

James Madison Memorial High School Yearbook, Who Are The Yankee Tv Announcers Tonight, The Emperor As Feelings For A Woman, Articles F