Page v Smith

判决理由

事实

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.

判决摘要

The House of Lords held, by a 3–2 majority, that Page could recover damages for the psychiatric illness (the recurrence and worsening of his chronic fatigue syndrome) triggered by the collision, even though he suffered no physical injury. Lord Lloyd, giving the leading speech, drew the now-central distinction between 'primary' victims — those within the range of foreseeable physical injury — and 'secondary' victims, who are outside that zone and merely witness injury to others. For a primary victim it is enough that some personal injury (physical or psychiatric) was reasonably foreseeable; there is no need to show that psychiatric injury in particular was foreseeable, and the defendant must take the victim as found, including any predisposition to psychiatric illness. Because Page had been directly involved in the accident and physical injury to him had been foreseeable, he could recover for the psychiatric consequences regardless of their unforeseeability. Lords Keith and Jauncey dissented. The primary/secondary distinction has been much criticised but remains the governing framework, alongside the control mechanisms for secondary victims in Alcock.

关键引述

后续处理