Supermodel Janice Dickinson has instructed Taylor Hampton Solicitors to bring a major personal injury claim against ITV following serious injuries she sustained while filming the TV show I’m A Celebrity… South Africa. The claim, valued at more than £700,000, is not only about one incident in a jungle camp, it raises wider questions about broadcasters’ duty of care, the legal responsibilities of production companies, and how the law protects individuals from harm and negligence in the entertainment industry.
The background: A fall in the jungle
During the filming of I’m A Celebrity, Dickinson suffered a fall while walking to the jungle toilet at night. According to her claim, filed at the High Court in London on 19 September 2025, she tripped and fell in pitch darkness, experiencing intense pain and sustaining serious head and permanent facial injuries.
She alleges that:
- The night-light on the way to the toilet was turned off.
- There was a delay in medical assistance after her fall.
- ITV provided inadequate aftercare following the incident.
ITV has rejected her account, insisting they looked after her following the fall, paid her medical bills and flew her home following her exit from the show.
The legal framework: negligence and duty of care
At the heart of Dickinson’s case are the concepts of negligence and duty of care. In law, negligence is the omission to do something a reasonable person would do. A duty of care arises when one party has an obligation to avoid causing harm to another. Broadcasters and production companies owe such duties to participants – especially in high-risk environments such as remote filming locations like I’m A Celebrity.
For negligence to be proven, four key elements must be established:
- Duty of Care – Did ITV owe Dickinson a duty to take reasonable steps to keep her safe?
- Breach of Duty – Did ITV breach that duty by failing to meet expected standards (e.g. adequate lighting, supervision, and medical readiness)?
- Causation – Did these failures directly cause Dickinson’s injuries, or make them worse?
- Damages – Has Dickinson suffered physical, psychological, reputational, or financial harm that warrants compensation?
The remedies sought in such claims typically include damages, injunctions, apologies, and sometimes statements in open court to correct the record.
The limitation period to bring personal injury and other negligence claims is three years from the date or injury or the date of knowledge of the injury.
Damages for physical and psychological harm
The court can award different types of damages, including compensation for pain, loss and suffering, loss of amenity, any reasonable medical expenses incurred and future financial losses. In addition, the court can award damages for past pecuniary losses (known as special damages). If a claimant has any role in their injuries, which is known as contributory negligence, the damages awarded may be reduced accordingly.
Claimants are able to claim damages for both physical and psychological injuries, as well as any emotional distress. Courts increasingly recognise that psychological injury and emotional harm can be as damaging as physical injury – the law protects both bodies and personal wellbeing. If Dickinson can prove that her injuries and subsequent treatment caused lasting distress, she could be awarded damages which reflect both her physical and psychological injuries.
What this case means for reality TV and beyond
This lawsuit is not just about one celebrity accident. It touches on wider issues affecting all participants in reality TV, high-risk entertainment formats, and media production environments.
TV networks and production companies must ensure the safety of staff and participants and create a safe working environment. This includes:
- Adequate equipment and infrastructure.
- Proper staff training and managerial supervision.
- Immediate access to medical care.
- Respectful handling of participants’ welfare, including appropriate aftercare.
If successful, this case could encourage other contestants, across the wider reality TV industry, to bring claims where they feel they were put at risk, mistreated, experienced misconduct behind the scenes and inadequate care, simply for entertainment value.
Taylor Hampton’s expertise
At Taylor Hampton Solicitors, we have built a reputation for holding powerful media organisations accountable. From the landmark Gulati v MGN phone hacking case which resulted in higher damages in privacy claims, to high-profile defamation, reputation, and personal injury disputes, our firm leads the way in both media and negligence law. The firm has extensive experience in both areas of law. Notably, the firm has represented numerous clients who have suffered psychiatric harm as a result of appearances on reality TV shows which have failed to provide adequate working conditions and appropriate aftercare.
In such cases, our role includes:
- Demonstrating that a broadcaster owed and breached a duty of care.
- Obtaining expert evidence, including on breach of duty, causation and any physical injury and psychological harm suffered.
- Pursuing compensation and remedies which reflect the gravity of the harm.
- Ensuring broadcasters are reminded of their obligations to safeguard participants
- Improve working conditions following incidents so as to avoid similar issues occurring.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is duty of care?
It is the legal obligation of a person or body to ensure the safety of others and prevent any reasonably foreseeable harm. Specific circumstances and relationships give rise to such a legal obligation. For example, in media-related personal injury cases, it often involves broadcasters ensuring participants are in a safe working environment with adequate equipment and support, including appropriate aftercare.
What damages can be awarded in negligence cases?
Damages may cover physical injury, psychological distress, loss of earnings, reputational harm, and legal costs.
What precedent could Dickinson’s case set?
If successful, it may encourage greater scrutiny of reality TV safety practices and embolden other participants to bring claims. It may also encourage media production companies to ensure their sets are adequately safe and they provide the appropriate support to participants.
Conclusion
Janice Dickinson’s claim against ITV is more than a celebrity headline, it is an example of how the law can protect individuals in entertainment environments. It highlights the duties owed by broadcasters, the importance of ensuring psychological as well as physical safety of all staff and participants, as well as the growing role of legal firms in ensuring accountability.
