Tort psychiatric harm

I have a problem question dealing with psychiatric harm. Basically, a cricketer's ball is struck into the road and a car swerves. The driver gets into an accident with a cyclist and then suffers traumatisation but isn't injured. three years ago he suffered from depression due to a friend's death caused by a car accident.

I need to advise the driver. Do i skip the Caparo test and go straight to whether he is primary or secondary and then apply the criteria from page v smith

OR

do i first discuss whether the cricket is liable, owes a duty, etc. then go on to talk about the primary victim?

I have all the notes and cases i need, it is just the order everything goes in that is confusing me!!!

Thanks in advance

p.s. i searched on TSR and although there are similar questions, i still haven't found the answer...maybe it's just me being dumb!!