HELPPPP - Psychiatric Harm and Primary Victims - Tort Law

In order to prove a duty of care for psychiatric harm to a primary victim, would I need to satisfy the Caparo v Dickman criteria, or would I merely need to state that 'as he is a primary victim a duty of care is automatically owed' and nothing further?

Psychiatric Harm is a "problematic duty area" which means the normal rules, under Caparo, do not apply. Under no circumstances are you applying Caparo when dealing with Psychiatric Harm.

You are also incorrect in saying that a duty of care is "automatically owed." In relation to primary victims, if an individual can show that they suffered psychiatric harm as a result of being in the zone of foreseeable physical danger - subject to reasonableness - then they have established a duty of care. (Page v Smith)

In Page v Smith, the claimant suffered psychiatric injury as a result of being in a car crash. No injuries were sustained, but she was in the zone of foreseeable physical danger, so a duty arose. The courts will look at the reasonableness of the danger to a degree. For example, if you bump into a tree while reversing into a parking space at 3MPH with no damage whatsoever done to the car, no jolting but only a small noise of scraping, and a passenger suffers psychiatric harm, its unlikely that it is going to be recoverable.

Therefore, correctly you could say a prima facie duty will arise where an individual suffers psychiatric harm as a result of being in the zone of foreseeable physical danger. There isn't anything automatic about it.

I was so confused. Thank you sooo much!!!