Page v.

Smith (Case Study)

Name: Apoorva Priyadarshini

PRN- 23010223065
Division- E
Programme- B.A. LL.B.
Batch- 2023-2028
Under the guidance of Mr. Ankit Shrivastava
(Symbiosis Law School, Noida)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERIAL NUMBER INDEX PAGE NUMBER

1. Introduction 3

2. Case Details 3

3. Issue 3

4. Rule 3

5. Analysis 3-5

6. Judgement / Conclusion 5-6

7. Impact & Significance 6

8. Closure 6

9. References 7
INTRODUCTON
Page v. Smith is an important case in the legal history of the United Kingdom. It was brought
before the Court of Justice in 1995 and set a legal precedent in the area of negligence. In the case
at hand, Mr. Page was suffering from a medical condition at the time of the accident. The
question was whether the accident had caused Mr Page’s condition to deteriorate or if Mr.
Smith’s (the other driver’s) negligent driving was a significant contributory factor.

CASE DETAILS
 Court: House of Lords
 Case name: Page v. Smith
 Decided: 11 May 1995
 Court membership: Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle,
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick

ISSUE
The present case involves the question of the adequacy of psychiatric harm to be compensated
for and draws a distinction between primary victims and secondary victims under English
negligence law in relation to the restitution of such harm.

RULE
Page v. Smith’s rule is known as the “possibility of physical injury” test. According to this test, if
a defendant is held liable for a secondary victim’s psychiatric injury, he or she must have
reasonably foreseeable that his or her negligence would result in the secondary victim suffering
some physical injury. In other words, the type of psychiatric injury the secondary victim suffered
did not have to be foreseeable as long as the secondary victim suffered some physical injury.

ANALYSIS

Background
Page v. Smith was a case that changed the way secondary victims can get compensation for
mental health issues. Basically, it was about Mr. Page being in a car crash with Mr. Smith's car.
He wasn't hurt in the crash, but because he saw it happen, he was left with mental health issues.
He sued Smith for negligence, but the court ruled that Smith could be held responsible for his
own mental health issues. The court said that it was reasonable to expect him to suffer some kind
of physical injury. The court also said that it wasn't necessary for the physical injury to be
foreseeable for the mental health issues to be taken into account.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The case of Page v. Smith was brought before the following courts:

 First Instance: Mr. Page brought an action against Mr. Smith for wrongful death. The
High Court ruled in favor of Mr. Page and awarded him damages.

 Court of Appeal: • The appeal Mr. Smith filed against the judgment of the High Court of
First Instance was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The High Court's decision was
overturned by the Court, which upheld the appeal. Because the harm could not have been
reasonably expected, the Court determined that Mr. Smith was not at fault for the mental
injury suffered by Mr. Page.

 House of Lords: Mr. Page took legal action against the Court of Appeal’s decision. Mr.
Page brought an action before the House of Lords, which overturned the decision of the
Court of Appeal. Mr. Page argued that Mr. Smith should be held liable for Mr. Page’s
psychiatric harm because there was reasonable expectation that Mr. Page would have
sustained some kind of physical injury as a result of the collision.

ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff’s Argument:

 He was a secondary victim of Mr. Smith's negligence: Mr. Page claimed that he was a
"secondary victim" of Mr. Smith's carelessness, as he was not physically involved in the
collision, but suffered psychological distress due to his being a witness to the incident.

 Probable cause of injury: Mr. Page alleged that, although he was not at the scene of the
collision, there was reasonable cause to believe that he would have sustained some kind
of physical injury. Mr. Page claimed that he would have been in the immediate vicinity of
the collision and would have been at risk of physical injury.

 The type of psychiatric harm he suffered was not required to be foreseeable: Mr. Page
asserted that the nature of the psychiatric harm he sustained did not necessitate the type
of harm to be foreseeable for Mr. Smith to be held liable. According to Mr. Page, the law
of negligence does not necessitate that defendants insure against all types of harm. He
further asserted that the foreseeability test for physical injury is a reasonable way to limit
the liability of defendants for psychiatric harm sustained by secondary victims.
Defendant’s Arguments:

 He was not liable for Mr. Page's psychiatric harm because the harm was not reasonably
foreseeable: Mr. Smith claimed that he was at fault because he couldn’t reasonably
predict that Mr. Page was going to suffer any kind of injury, much less psychiatric harm,
after witnessing the collision. He claimed that he could not reasonably predict that seeing
the collision would cause Mr. Page to suffer psychiatric harm.

 Possibility of physical injury test is unfair and unreasonable: Mr. Smith claimed that the
“Possibility of Physical Injury Test” is unfair and unreasonable because it places an
unreasonable burden on the defendant to insure against all types of psychiatric injury. He
argued that the “Law of Negligence” does not require the defendant to take “preemptive
measures” against all types of harm and that the “Provisibility” of the “Physical Injury”
test is too “low” a standard.

 Proximity to the Existing Law of Negligence: According to Mr. Smith, the “Exposure to
the Existence of Negligence Act” already requires defendants to take “reasonable steps”
to prevent foreseeable harm. The “Possibility” of Physical Injury Test is simply a form of
application of this principle to claims of psychiatric injury suffered by secondary victims.

JUDGEMENT / CONCLUSION
In Page v. Smith, AC 155, the Court of Justice held that negligence could result in liability for
psychiatric harm. Mr. Page, the main claimant, suffered psychiatric harm after he witnessed his
wife being injured in a car accident.

The Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mr. Page, but only by a very limited margin, largely due
to the abstentions of Lords Keith and Jauncey. The Court held that, if any personal injury could
be reasonably expected, it did not necessarily have to be physical or psychiatric, and the primary
victim did not have to prove that psychiatric injury could be foreseeable either.

The Court also ruled that defendant’s argument that an ordinary person wouldn’t have suffered
the injury suffered by the plaintiff was inadmissible. The Court found that it is settled case-law
that the defendant must treat his victim as he treats him under the ‘thin skull rule’.

The plaintiff won his action and was awarded damages of £162,000 by the defendant.

Page v Smith has been consistently applied in subsequent cases, although it has also been subject
to qualification in certain circumstances. For instance, White v Jones (1995) 2 AC 207 was a
case in which the House of Lords ruled that, in the case of pure economic loss, the thin skull rule
does not apply.
Page v Smith remains one of the most significant judgments in negligence law relating to
psychiatric injury to date. It is by no means an easy decision, and there is considerable
uncertainty surrounding its scope. However, it has also been praised by many claimants for
simplifying the process of recovering damages for psychiatric injury caused by negligence.

IMPACT & SIGNIFICANCE

 Page v. Smith is recognized by many as one of the most important rulings in the domain
of negligence law pertaining to psychiatric harm. In following cases, it has been
consistently applied, though in some, it has also been qualified.
 For example, White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 was one such case, where the House of
Lords held that the thin skull rule did not apply in the event of pure economic loss.
Despite its complexity and ambiguity, the decision has been widely welcomed by
claimants, as it has made it easier to recover damages for psychiatric injury caused by
negligence.
 The Page v Smith decision has been met with a positive response from claimants, but has
also been met with criticism from some academics. It has been suggested that the
decision may have made it too simple for claimants to seek compensation for psychiatric
injury, leading to the possibility of an unjustified outcome.
 Nonetheless, the Page v Smith decision remains one of the most significant legal
decisions in the field of negligence in psychiatric injury. The decision is complex and
there is some uncertainty as to its exact scope. Nevertheless, the majority of claimants
have expressed a positive response to the decision, claiming that it has simplified the
process of seeking compensation for psychiatric injury due to negligence.

CLOSURE:
Page v Smith is one of the most significant decisions in the history of negligence law. It introduced
the ‘material contribution’ test, recognizing the complexity of personal injury cases, and laid the
foundations for a more equitable and robust legal system.
This case has not only shaped subsequent negligence cases, but has also provided judges and legal
practitioners with more clarity and guidance when it comes to liability and damages.
The Page v. Smith case is a testament to how negligence law is changing and adapting to the
changing times.
REFERENCES
 Handford, P Tort Liability for Psychiatric Harm (2006, Australia, Law Book Co)
 Page v Smith [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep95
 [2007] UKHL 39, [2008] 1 AC 281
 Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
 McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] AC 410
 White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455