Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155

Facts

  • The claimant, with a history of chronic fatigue syndrome, was involved in a road traffic accident caused by the defendant’s negligence.
  • Although the claimant suffered no physical injury, the accident exacerbated his pre-existing psychiatric condition.
  • The issue arose whether the defendant could be liable for the psychiatric harm suffered by the claimant, given that only physical harm—not psychiatric harm—was foreseeable in the circumstances.
  • The claimant was a “primary victim,” being directly involved in the incident and within the zone of potential physical danger.

Issues

  1. Whether a defendant can be liable for psychiatric injury suffered by a primary victim where only physical harm is foreseeable.
  2. Whether the “thin skull” rule applies to psychiatric injury, making a defendant liable for the exacerbation of pre-existing psychiatric conditions.
  3. How the legal distinction between primary and secondary victims affects recovery for psychiatric injury in negligence claims.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that as long as physical harm was foreseeable, the defendant could be liable for psychiatric injury to a primary victim, even where psychiatric harm was not itself foreseeable.
  • The court confirmed that the “thin skull” rule applies equally to psychiatric injury: defendants must take their victims as they find them, including pre-existing vulnerabilities.
  • The distinction was maintained between primary and secondary victims, with primary victims facing a lower threshold—only foreseeability of physical harm was required.
  • The defendant was found liable for the claimant’s psychiatric injury which constituted an exacerbation of the claimant’s chronic fatigue syndrome.

Legal Principles

  • Foreseeability of physical harm is sufficient to found liability for psychiatric injury in primary victims.
  • The “thin skull” or “eggshell skull” rule applies to psychiatric injuries: a defendant is liable for the full extent of the claimant’s harm, even if the claimant is unusually susceptible.
  • Primary victims are those directly involved in the incident and within the range of foreseeable physical harm; they need not show separate foreseeability of psychiatric harm.
  • Secondary victims (witnesses or those not directly involved) must satisfy additional criteria, including proximity to the event and relationship to a primary victim, to claim for psychiatric injury.

Conclusion

Page v Smith established that a defendant’s duty in negligence extends to psychiatric injury suffered by a primary victim if physical harm was foreseeable, reinforcing the application of the “thin skull” rule and clarifying the primary-secondary victim distinction in psychiatric harm 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