oh, OK
hillsborough - the police recovered damages quicker than the injured because they were in contract ( emnployed) and so cd rely on contract and not tort
those squeeshed had to show there was a duty of care ( negligence, see above DOnoghue v Stevenson ) and cd hang a further claim for psycho damage on the case ( Fishcreel case - bourhill v Young)
BUT those who saw their children sqeeshed, if they were present, then they cd recover for psycho damage ALONE
but those who saw it on telly cd not
and the judge said, I am sorry boys I am gonna draw the public policy line at presence - those present yes, those seeing it on telly no.
and THAT was why I said Hillsborough cases apart
( squawks of the usual foo wot he on abart ven - foo dat goobledegooky stuff dat is - ad infintum - thank you for getting down to here)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson