Page v Smith: CA 4 May 1994

The plaintiff was driving his car at 30 miles an hour when the defendant turned right immediately into his path. In the accident both cars suffered damage but the occupants all escaped physical injury. The Plaintiff, however, had suffered for 20 years from chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time to time. The judge held that the shock of the accident reactivated this condition which was now in all probability permanent and that it was unlikely that the plaintiff would be able to return to full-time employment, and he awarded damages of pounds 162,153.
Held: Allowing the defendants’ appeal on the ground that psychiatric injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the accident. A claim for damages for pure nervous shock requires that the psychiatric injury should be a foreseeable result.

Citations:

Times 04-May-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedKing v Phillips CA 1952
Denning LJ said: ‘there can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock.’ A person ‘who suffers shock on being told of an accident to a loved one cannot recover damages from the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPage v Smith HL 12-May-1995
The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.84537