Page v Smith [1995] UKHL 7 is the leading House of Lords authority for determining the duty of care owed to primary victims who suffer pure psychiatric harm.
Case Facts
The claimant was involved in a car accident caused by the defendant’s negligence. Although he suffered no physical injury in the crash, the shock of the event triggered a recurrence of a pre-existing condition (chronic fatigue syndrome), which resulted in a medically recognised psychiatric illness.
Legal Principles and Terminology
The House of Lords used this case to establish the terminology for categorising victims of psychiatric harm:
- Primary victim: someone who was actually involved in an incident — either in the actual area of danger or who reasonably believed they were in such danger.
- Foreseeability requirement: a duty of care is owed to a primary victim for pure psychiatric harm provided that physical injury was foreseeable, even if no physical injury actually occurred.
- No distinction: for primary victims, it is not necessary to prove that the psychiatric harm itself was foreseeable. No legal distinction is made between physical and psychiatric injury for those in the “zone of danger”.
The “Egg-Shell Skull” Rule
The case is also a significant application of the “egg-shell skull” rule to psychiatric injury. Because the claimant was a primary victim to whom a duty was owed (due to the foreseeability of physical harm), he was entitled to recover damages for the full extent of his illness. It did not matter that the harm was more severe than could reasonably have been foreseen due to his pre-existing vulnerability; the defendant had to “take their victim as they find them”.
Significance
Page v Smith remains the key authority for primary victims, distinguishing them from secondary victims (witnesses like those in Alcock), who must meet much more stringent “control mechanisms” to recover damages.