## 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.
