Page v Smith

Page v Smith

Page v Smith is a landmark case in English tort law, specifically concerning the area of negligence and the concept of psychiatric injury. The case is significant for its exploration of the "thin skull rule" and the distinction between primary and secondary victims in claims for psychiatric harm.

Background

The case arose from a minor car accident that occurred on 22 May 1990. The plaintiff, Mr. Page, was involved in a collision with the defendant, Mr. Smith. Although the accident was not severe and Mr. Page did not suffer any physical injuries, he claimed that the incident exacerbated his pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), leading to a significant deterioration in his health.

Legal Issues

The primary legal issue in Page v Smith was whether the defendant could be held liable for the psychiatric injury suffered by the plaintiff, despite the absence of physical harm. The case required the court to consider the application of the "thin skull rule" in the context of psychiatric injury and to determine whether Mr. Page was a primary or secondary victim.

Thin Skull Rule

The "thin skull rule," also known as the "egg-shell skull rule," is a legal doctrine that holds a defendant liable for the plaintiff's injuries even if the injuries are more severe than what would have been expected due to the plaintiff's pre-existing condition. In Page v Smith, the court had to decide whether this rule applied to psychiatric injuries as well as physical ones.

Primary vs. Secondary Victims

The distinction between primary and secondary victims is crucial in claims for psychiatric harm. A primary victim is someone who is directly involved in an incident and is within the range of foreseeable physical harm. A secondary victim is someone who witnesses an incident or its aftermath and suffers psychiatric harm as a result. The court had to determine Mr. Page's status to assess the duty of care owed by Mr. Smith.

Judgment

The House of Lords delivered its judgment on 11 May 1995. The court held that Mr. Page was a primary victim because he was directly involved in the accident and was within the range of foreseeable physical harm, even though he did not suffer physical injuries. As a primary victim, Mr. Page did not need to prove that his psychiatric injury was foreseeable, only that some form of personal injury was foreseeable.

The court applied the thin skull rule, concluding that the defendant was liable for the full extent of the plaintiff's psychiatric injury, even though it was exacerbated by a pre-existing condition.

Significance

Page v Smith is a pivotal case in the development of the law on psychiatric injury. It established that primary victims do not need to prove foreseeability of psychiatric harm, only that they were within the range of foreseeable physical harm. The case also confirmed the application of the thin skull rule to psychiatric injuries, reinforcing the principle that defendants take their victims as they find them.

Also see

• Negligence
• Psychiatric injury in English law
• Thin skull rule
• Primary and secondary victims