“Primary victims can recover for psychiatric injury without physical harm”
The claimant suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome which had been in remission. Following a minor car accident caused by the defendant's negligence, where he was not physically injured but feared for his safety, his condition was triggered and became permanent.
Whether a duty of care is owed to avoid psychiatric injury to a person within the zone of physical danger who suffers no physical harm, and what test applies to primary victims in psychiatric injury cases.
The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable. A person directly involved in an accident who suffers psychiatric injury is a primary victim, and the ordinary test of reasonable foreseeability of personal injury applies, without need to prove psychiatric injury was foreseeable.
This landmark decision established the primary/secondary victim distinction in psychiatric injury claims and made it significantly easier for primary victims to recover damages. It represents a major development in the law of negligence concerning mental harm.
You're reading the free summary of Page v Smith. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.