Page v Smith [1995] UKHL 7
Citation:Page v Smith [1995] UKHL 7
Rule of thumb:IF someone is in a very minor accident collision, can they claim gigantic damages? Yes, the thin skull rule of damages ensures that if someone is in a minor & innocuous collision which the majority of people would shrug off as nothing, and they sustain damages which are gigantic, these can still be claimed as damages. The Court in this case affirmed that where someone sustains a physical injury from a scenario which was highly unlikely but not indeed impossible to get from this scenario, they can still claim personal injury damages from it.
Background facts:
The facts were that Mr Page was in a minor collision. He then sustained the psychiatric injury of chronic fatigue syndrome afterwards, which he had in the past but was in remission at this time, and the accident triggered it to return.
Parties argued:
The defenders argued that such massive damages from such a minor thing could not be reclaimed.
Judgment:
The Court held that Page could sue for this injury and that it was not excluded due to remoteness of damages. In short, any time someone sustains a physical injury or is in any situation which is intimidating then the risk of psychiatric damages is high.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘Could the defendant reasonably foresee that his conduct would expose the plaintiff to the risk of personal injury, psychological or physical? ... takes the plaintiff as one finds him (eggshell skull rule in damages)’.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.