Smith V Leech Brain(1962) The claimant burnt his lip due to the defendant’s negligence. Page v Smith is a leading and authoritative case in tort law where negligence is involved resulting in psychiatric harm to the victim. Page, was involved in a moderate-impact accident. 155) where the plaintiff is a "secondary victim"; nor is foreseeability of damage to property sufficient to give rise to a duty if there are other considerations which, in the circumstances, make it unfair, unjust and unreasonable to impose such a duty: Marc Rich & Co. AG v. remoteness of damage and that only applies where the claimant has actually suffered damage that is in principle actionable;6 it does not apply so as to justify initial liability.7 Point 5 concerning Page v Smith needs rewording to make it clear that the Page v Smith principle can only come into play where it … Therefore, if he has some kind of weakness, you have to accept this. The Facts of Page v. Smith On 24 July 1987, the claimant in Page v. Smith, Ronald Edgar Page, was driving up a steep hill towards the school where he was a teacher. Page v Smith (No 2) ... REMOTENESS (CAUSATION OF LAW) As well as proving that the defendant’s breach of duty factually caused the damage suffered by the claimant, the claimant must prove that the damage was not too remote from the defendant’s breach. Exposed to the danger. Facts. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence liability in psychiatric harm.. Main arguments in this case: Who is a primary victim and who is a secondary victim in a case of negligence?Foreseeability in psychiatric harm. Page (Appellant) v. Smith (Respondent) ... "Howsoever that may be, whether the exemption for shock bebased on want of duty or on remoteness, there can be no doubt sinceBourhill v. Young [1943] AC 92 that the test of liability for shockis foreseeability of injury by shock." In Page v Smith, the House of Lords held there was no difference between physical and psychiatric harm for the purposes of the duty of care in the tort of negligence.. Facts. Neither Mr Page or any of his passengers suffered any bodily injuries. Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145, Lord Goff, 185, ‘the rules as to remoteness of damage… are less restricted in tort than they are in contract’. Page was controversial when it was decided and hard to analyse, and has caused a range of difficulties in subsequent litigation. Psychological effect of car crash worsened C’s Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) to the point of permanent disablement. Mr Page was driving along when Mr Smith negligently collided with him. Smith [1996] 1 AC. Basically, this is the same as in criminal law, in that you must take the claimant as you find him. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. -Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals i) Even if the extent of the injury is aggravated by C's pre-disposition ('TAKE VICTIM AS YOU FIND THEM'):-Thin Skull Rule (Smith v Leech (on my lip) Brain, Corr v IBC)-Egg Shell Rule (Page v Smith)-Thin Wallet Rule (Lagden v O'Connor) B) NO NEED TO FORESEE EXACT WAY LOSS CAUSED. Page v Smith In Page v Smith, the House of Lords confirmed that a claimant only needs to show that some personal or psychiatric harm was reasonably foreseeable for the tort of negligence. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. One relevant area within remoteness is the eggshell skull principle. Contract and tort. Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 was one of a series of landmark decisions of the House of Lords that concerned the extent of negligence liability under English law for the causing of psychiatric harm. Why Page v Smith is important. A similar test was used in Page v Smith (No 2). The claimant, Mr. Page v Smith [1995] UKHL 7 >[1996] 1 AC 155. * Respectively Professor of Public Law, University of Nottingham, and Fellow and Tutor in Law, Worcester College, University of Oxford. Similarly, they confirmed the principle that a defendant takes his victim as he finds him applies also to psychiatric harm. II.