Page v Smith [1996] AC 155

Facts

  • The claimant, Mr. Page, was involved in a road traffic accident caused by the defendant’s negligence.
  • Mr. Page did not suffer physical injuries from the accident.
  • He claimed the accident exacerbated his pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, resulting in significant psychiatric harm.
  • The legal dispute centered on whether, for a primary victim, foreseeability of psychiatric injury or only foreseeability of physical injury was required to establish liability in negligence.

Issues

  1. Whether a primary victim must prove that psychiatric injury was foreseeable, or whether it is sufficient that physical injury was foreseeable, to establish liability in negligence.
  2. What distinguishes primary from secondary victims in the context of psychiatric injury claims.
  3. Whether the scope of duty of care in negligence claims includes psychiatric harm where only physical injury is foreseeable.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that primary victims, being those directly involved in or physically endangered by an incident, need only demonstrate that physical injury was foreseeable to establish liability.
  • It was determined that foreseeability of physical injury sufficed even if the actual harm suffered was psychiatric.
  • The court clarified that primary victims do not need to prove foreseeability of psychiatric injury for liability to arise.
  • The distinction between primary and secondary victims was reaffirmed, with primary victims facing a lower threshold of proof compared to secondary victims.

Legal Principles

  • Foreseeability of physical injury to a primary victim is sufficient to establish a duty of care in negligence, even where the actual harm suffered is psychiatric.
  • Primary victims are those directly involved in or physically endangered by an incident.
  • Secondary victims are those who suffer psychiatric harm as bystanders or witnesses and must show foreseeability of psychiatric injury, as well as proximity or close relationship to the event.
  • The case draws from principles established in prior decisions such as Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310.
  • The judgment simplified and clarified the framework for psychiatric injury claims in English tort law, particularly for primary victims.

Conclusion

Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 established that primary victims involved in negligent incidents need only prove foreseeability of physical injury for liability to psychiatric harm, thereby clarifying and lowering the evidentiary threshold for recoverability of psychiatric damage in negligence claims.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal