Ecnomic And physcatric Harm Pt 2 Flashcards
What is tort and negligence?
Tort= Physical damage to property/injury
Negligence= economic loss/physiatrist injury
What does paper 2 of tort still require in order to answer?
P1 - DOC, BOD, LOSS/REMOTNESS Damages
Which courts will they sue for these damages
County court or high court
What are the 2 types of economic loss?
Pure consequential
What is consequential loss and can it be recovered?
Physical injury and loss
Can be recovered
What is pure economic loss?
This is just money loss and cant be recovered
What are the cases called for this ratio:
Loss of profit is pure economic loss which cannot be recovered
-Spartan steel V Martin n co
-Cattle V storkton waterworks
-Weller V foot n Mouth disease
However they are some key expectation for pure economic loss what is this called?
Negligence misstatement = statement of inaccurate information
Does negligent misstatement have to be only verbal?
No can be written
For example: report, surveys aswell as professional advice
Candler V Crane Christmas co
Law of contract only allow claims for money for those parties within the contract
Hedley Byrne V Heller
D could rely upon the words without responsibility to avoid liability
C + D must have a special relationship they are 5 elements that can identified what are these?
-D posses a skill/expertise
-D voluntarily assumed responsibility
-D knows the person relying upon it
-D knows what the purpose of account
-D knows reasonable reliance
Expertise/skill
Lenon V MPC
D had specialist skill and gave out incorrect information was negligent misstatement
Assumed responsibility
-Chaudry V prabhbaker
-Yvani V edwin Evan
-Pachet V swimming pool
1) D must be prepared for C to rely upon the advice and must take full responsibility
2) D had DOC and assumed responsibility
3) Site has not assumed responsibility for advice
Known user
- Capro V dickman
- Goodwill V BPAS
C had prepared the accounts negligent but it was not known C would rely upon it
D will only be liable if he knows the person relying upon it
Known purpose
Capro v dickman
Law society V KMPG
Accounts were negligently prepared for the specific of identifying fraud
Reasonable reliance:
-Smith V Eric bush
Surveyors had a doc for those property purchased. Reasonable for smith to rely upon statement
What is psychiatric harm?
Nervous shock verified with medical evidence
What are an example of psychiatric harm ?
PTSD
flashback
Sleep problems
In order for nervous shock what must a person show?
If he was a primary or secondary victim
What is a primary victim?
Person injured/fears he will be injured suffers from psychiatric harm
What are the 2 key elements for primary victim?
Directly involved- even if he escaped physical injury
Rescuers- attends a dangerous scene n suffers from psychiatric harm
Directly involved cases:
Page V Smith
Donoachie V chief constantly of Greater Manchester
1) As long as injury was foreseeable doesn’t matter if it’s physiological
2) C’s stress induced was a physical and physiological injury
Rescuers:
-White V chief constable of South Yorkshire
-Chadwick V British railways board
1) Primary victim must be either directly involved or fear physical injury from incident
2) danger of train wreckage met that C fears for his own safety throughout
What is a secondary victim?
Person who witness the aftermath
Alcock V chief constable of South Yorkshire
Proximity of relationship of primary victim
Proximity of time n space
Perceived the incident by own senses
Proximity of relationship case n ratio
Must be close tie love n affection
Bourhill V young= C had no close tie love or affection
Robertson & Rough V ford road bridge= joint employment is not close tie
Proximity of time and space
Accident must be immediacy or hearing
Mcloughian V Obrain= mrs mcloughian saw immediate aftermath
Gali Atkinson v Seahawk= saw immediate aftermath of her daughters RTA
C must perceives with his own senses
C must present at scene rejected if communication is by third party. Eg: radio, tv
After All 3 accepted of alcock rule there are 2 other requirements what are these
Sudden shock
Reasonable fortitude
Sudden shock
-Sion V Hampstead
-Watlers V North Glamorgan NHS trust
Gradual deterioration over 2 weeks not sudden shock
Son death was a sudden shock
Reasonable fortitude
If a reasonable man aswell as claimant would suffer they would win if not then they won’t because thin skull rule won’t be applied
