Page v Smith [1995]

Plaintiffs involved in collision caused by defendant’s
negligence.
Property damage but no physical injury.
Plaintiff suffered recurrence of ME.
House of Lords held that in cases of psychological injury,
must distinguish between primary and secondary victims.
Control mechanisms for secondary victim cases, for
floodgate reasons.
Thus defendant not liable unless psychological injury foreseeable
in person of normal fortitude.
But in primary victim cases test is whether defendant can
reasonably foresee his conduct will expose plaintiff to risk of personal injury,
whether physical or psychological.
If so, duty of care exists.
If duty of care exists, defendant must take victim as
he finds him.
This case was primary victim case, and personal injury
was foreseeable.

Duty of care had been breached.