Topic:

‘Liability for Fear of Future Disease?’

Author:

M. Jones

Viewpoint:

Analyses the current status of Page v Smith in the light of the decision in Rothwell. Concludes that the law on psychiatric injury remains in an uncertain and unsatisfactory condition.

Source:

(2008) 24 PN 13

Topic:

‘Liability for Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Harm: Justification and ­Boundaries’

Author:

H. Teff

Viewpoint:

Analyses the current state of the law following Page and Alcock. Argues for a more flexible and generous approach with an emphasis on foreseeability rather than proximity and primary/secondary distinction.

Source:

(1998) 5 CLJ 91