Page v Smith
A primary victim who was within the range of foreseeable physical injury can recover for psychiatric injury, even if physical injury did not occur and psychiatric injury was not itself foreseeable.
Facts
Mr Page was involved in a minor car accident caused by Mr Smith's negligence. He was not physically injured, but the accident caused a recurrence of chronic fatigue syndrome, from which he had suffered in the past, and he became permanently unable to work. Mr Smith argued that psychiatric injury was not a foreseeable consequence of such a minor accident.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that Mr Page could recover. Lord Lloyd said that Mr Page was a primary victim, because he was directly involved in the accident and within the range of foreseeable physical injury. In the case of a primary victim, it is enough that some personal injury, whether physical or psychiatric, was foreseeable, and there is no need to show that psychiatric injury in particular was foreseeable. The defendant must take the claimant as he finds him, including his vulnerability to psychiatric illness. The decision has been criticised, but remains good law.
Related cases on psychiatric injury
- Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310
- Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13, [2004] 1 WLR 1089
- Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
- Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912
- Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669
- Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 1 WLR 1970
- Hambrook v Stokes Brothers [1925] 1 KB 141
- Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76, [2002] ICR 613
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
