Court: House of Lords
Judgment: Date 11 May 1995
Where Reported: [1996] A.C. 155; [1995] 2 W.L.R. 644; [1995] 2 All E.R. 736
Legal Issues in Page v Smith
The legal issue in Page v Smith focused on whether foreseeable physical harm is a necessary condition for a defendant to be held liable for psychiatric injury caused to the plaintiff.
Page v Smith questioned whether a claimant must demonstrate that psychiatric injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence, especially when the claimant was involved in an accident but did not suffer any physical harm.
Material Facts in Page v Smith
Page v Smith involved a road traffic accident where the plaintiff, Mr. Page, experienced a worsening of his existing chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as a result of the accident.
Mr. Page was involved in a minor collision caused by the defendant’s negligence. While there was no physical injury, Mr. Page argued that the stress of the accident caused a severe and permanent relapse of his CFS, preventing him from returning to work.
The legal proceedings focused on whether the defendant could be held liable for Mr. Page’s psychiatric injury, which was not a foreseeable consequence of the accident.
Judgment in Page v Smith
The House of Lords held in favour of Mr. Page. The court ruled that once a duty of care is established, and personal injury is a foreseeable outcome of the defendant’s negligence, it does not matter whether the injury sustained is physical or psychiatric.
The court found that Mr. Page did not need to demonstrate that his specific type of injury (psychiatric) was foreseeable, only that some personal injury was a foreseeable outcome of the accident.
The Reason for the Decision in Page v Smith
The decision was grounded in the principles of negligence and duty of care. The House of Lords reasoned that where there is a duty of care to avoid causing personal injury, and injury is a foreseeable result of negligence, the specific type of injury does not need to be foreseeable.
The judgment emphasised the importance of foreseeability in establishing a duty of care, but once this duty is established, the defendant must take the plaintiff as they find them – the eggshell skull rule.
The court distinguished between primary and secondary victims in cases of psychiatric injury. Mr. Page was considered a primary victim as he was directly involved in the accident.
In such cases, the requirement for foreseeability of psychiatric injury is less stringent than for secondary victims (those indirectly experiencing trauma, like witnesses).
Additionally, the court addressed the application of the “eggshell skull” rule. This principle dictates that a defendant must compensate for all injuries resulting from their negligence, regardless of the plaintiff’s pre-existing vulnerabilities.
The court found that Mr. Page’s pre-existing CFS did not preclude him from claiming damages for the psychiatric injury caused by the accident.
The decision also reflected a broader understanding of personal injury, recognising psychiatric injuries as equally compensable as physical injuries under tort law.
Legal Principles in Page v Smith
Page v Smith established the principle that in negligence cases, once a duty of care is established, the type of injury does not need to be specifically foreseeable.
The ruling expanded the understanding of personal injury to include psychiatric injuries, affirming that defendants are liable for all injuries resulting from their negligence, irrespective of the plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions.
The case underscored the “eggshell skull” rule, emphasising that defendants must take their victims as they find them.
