판결 이유
A primary victim (someone within the range of foreseeable physical injury) can recover for psychiatric illness even if physical injury was foreseeable but psychiatric injury was not. There is no need to show that psychiatric injury itself was foreseeable for a primary victim.
사실관계
Page was involved in a minor car collision caused by Smith's negligence. He suffered no physical injuries but the accident triggered a recurrence of chronic fatigue syndrome (ME) which had been in remission.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held (3-2) that Page could recover. As a primary victim (within the range of foreseeable physical harm), it was unnecessary to show that psychiatric injury was itself foreseeable. The distinction between primary and secondary victims was established.
주요 인용문
"In the case of a primary victim, it is not necessary that the defendant should have foreseen psychiatric injury. It is sufficient that personal injury of some kind was foreseeable."
— Lord Lloyd
후속 처리
Established the primary/secondary victim distinction for psychiatric injury claims. Criticised but followed.