In Page v Smith the defendant had admitted negligent driving, but had argued that the psychiatric damage suffered (ME) was not foreseeable and therefore no duty of care was owed in respect of it. The House of Lords disagreed. They held that [...]. There was no need to foresee psychiatric damage. As primary victims are within the danger zone or reasonably fear for their own safety, it is likely that in most cases the defendant should have foreseen physical injury to the claimant.
Answer
in the case of primary victims if physical injury is foreseeable to a particular claimant then that would be sufficient to enable the claimant to recover damages for nervous shock even though he had not been physically hurt
Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In Page v Smith the defendant had admitted negligent driving, but had argued that the psychiatric damage suffered (ME) was not foreseeable and therefore no duty of care was owed in respect of it. The House of Lords disagreed. They held that [...]. There was no need to foresee psychiatric damage. As primary victims are within the danger zone or reasonably fear for their own safety, it is likely that in most cases the defendant should have foreseen physical injury to the claimant.
Answer
?
Tags
#law #negligence #tort
Question
In Page v Smith the defendant had admitted negligent driving, but had argued that the psychiatric damage suffered (ME) was not foreseeable and therefore no duty of care was owed in respect of it. The House of Lords disagreed. They held that [...]. There was no need to foresee psychiatric damage. As primary victims are within the danger zone or reasonably fear for their own safety, it is likely that in most cases the defendant should have foreseen physical injury to the claimant.
Answer
in the case of primary victims if physical injury is foreseeable to a particular claimant then that would be sufficient to enable the claimant to recover damages for nervous shock even though he had not been physically hurt
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Page v Smith the defendant had admitted negligent driving, but had argued that the psychiatric damage suffered (ME) was not foreseeable and therefore no duty of care was owed in respect of it. The House of Lords disagreed. They held that <span>in the case of primary victims if physical injury is foreseeable to a particular claimant then that would be sufficient to enable the claimant to recover damages for nervous shock even though he had not been physically hurt. There was no need to foresee psychiatric damage. As primary victims are within the danger zone or reasonably fear for their own safety, it is likely that in most cases the defendant
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.