Which case is Lord Goff drawing an analogy with in the following extract from White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police?
'Suppose that there was a terrible train crash and that there were two … brothers living nearby, both of them small and agile window cleaners distinguished by their courage and humanity. Mr A … worked on the front half of the train, and Mr B … on the rear half. It so happened that, although there was some physical danger present in the front half of the train, there was none in the rear. Both worked for 12 hours or so bringing aid and comfort to the victims. Both suffered PTSD in consequence of the general horror of the situation. On the new control mechanism now proposed, Mr A would recover but Mr B would not. To make things worse, the same conclusion must follow even if Mr A was unaware of the existence of the physical danger present in his half of the train. This is surely unacceptable'.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Lord Goff is drawing an analogy with Chadwick v British Railways Board, where a volunteer who helped in the aftermath of a train crash was able to claim for psychiatric harm despite not being in physical danger himself, highlighting the inconsistency in the application of the law regarding secondary victims and psychiatric harm.

Which Case Is Lord Goff Drawing an Analogy with in the Following