W7 – PSYCHIATRIC INJURY
READINGS
* McBride and Bagshaw, pp 121-142
* Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL)
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2007] UKHL 39, [2008] 1 AC 281
* Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 (HL)
* White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 (HL)
W v Essex County Council [2001] 2 AC 592 (HL)
Monk v PC Harrington Ltd [2008] EWHC 1879 (QB), [2009] PIQR P3
Optional further reading
Bailey and Nolan, ‘The Page v Smith Saga: A Tale of Inauspicious Origins and
Unintended Consequences’ [2010] CLJ 495
Jones, ‘Liability for Psychiatric Damage: Searching for a Path between
Pragmatism and Principle’ in Neyers, Chamberlain and Pitel (eds), Emerging
Issues in Tort Law (Hart Publishing, 2007)
Discussion questions
1. Why is psychiatric injury seen to raise particular problems for the law of negligence?
Not easily localised like economic loss.
Context needs considering.
Problems with proof; what is a recognised psychiatric illness?
2. In cases of psychiatric injury, a distinction is sometimes drawn primary and secondary victims.
Who are primary victims? Who are secondary victims? Can all victims of negligently inflicted
psychiatric injury be allocated to one or other of these categories?
A primary victim one involved mediately or immediately as a participant and a secondary
victim one who is no more than a passive and unwilling witness of injury to others.
3. What is the significance of the decision in Page v Smith? How is Page v Smith qualified in
Rothwell?
An understanding of ‘kind of loss’ leads to fewer losses being too remote (and vice versa).
The cases sometimes understand kinds of loss narrowly (Page v Smith). In this case, even
though D owed , and yet breached a duty of care to C and though the breach was a cause of
C’s injury, the law will deny c’s compensation for the injury.
Page v Smith: Claimant suffered from Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) overtime and was in
recovery when he was involved in a minor car accident due to D’s negligence. C wasn’t
physically injured but it triggered his ME and it became chronic and permanent so couldn’t
continue teaching. It was held that provided some personal injury was foreseeable, it did not
matter whether the injury was physical or psychiatric. Also, an ordinary person wouldn’t
have suffered the same injury incurred by the claimant was irrelevant as D must take his
victim with the thin skull rule.
READINGS
* McBride and Bagshaw, pp 121-142
* Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL)
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2007] UKHL 39, [2008] 1 AC 281
* Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 (HL)
* White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 (HL)
W v Essex County Council [2001] 2 AC 592 (HL)
Monk v PC Harrington Ltd [2008] EWHC 1879 (QB), [2009] PIQR P3
Optional further reading
Bailey and Nolan, ‘The Page v Smith Saga: A Tale of Inauspicious Origins and
Unintended Consequences’ [2010] CLJ 495
Jones, ‘Liability for Psychiatric Damage: Searching for a Path between
Pragmatism and Principle’ in Neyers, Chamberlain and Pitel (eds), Emerging
Issues in Tort Law (Hart Publishing, 2007)
Discussion questions
1. Why is psychiatric injury seen to raise particular problems for the law of negligence?
Not easily localised like economic loss.
Context needs considering.
Problems with proof; what is a recognised psychiatric illness?
2. In cases of psychiatric injury, a distinction is sometimes drawn primary and secondary victims.
Who are primary victims? Who are secondary victims? Can all victims of negligently inflicted
psychiatric injury be allocated to one or other of these categories?
A primary victim one involved mediately or immediately as a participant and a secondary
victim one who is no more than a passive and unwilling witness of injury to others.
3. What is the significance of the decision in Page v Smith? How is Page v Smith qualified in
Rothwell?
An understanding of ‘kind of loss’ leads to fewer losses being too remote (and vice versa).
The cases sometimes understand kinds of loss narrowly (Page v Smith). In this case, even
though D owed , and yet breached a duty of care to C and though the breach was a cause of
C’s injury, the law will deny c’s compensation for the injury.
Page v Smith: Claimant suffered from Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) overtime and was in
recovery when he was involved in a minor car accident due to D’s negligence. C wasn’t
physically injured but it triggered his ME and it became chronic and permanent so couldn’t
continue teaching. It was held that provided some personal injury was foreseeable, it did not
matter whether the injury was physical or psychiatric. Also, an ordinary person wouldn’t
have suffered the same injury incurred by the claimant was irrelevant as D must take his
victim with the thin skull rule.
