Economic Loss

Question 1

Spartan Steel v Martin

Answer 1

Through negligence in digging up a road, the defendant contractor inadvertently severed a power suppy. The plaintiff’s factory was engaged in smelting. Loss of power supply for a period of 14 hourse or more cause a number of forms of damage.
General rule - no liability for ‘pure’ economic loss.

Question 2

Murphy v Brentwood DC

Answer 2

No liability for economic loss cause by acquiring a product that turns out to be defective. These cases do not involve injury to the person or to property other that the defective product itself.

Question 3

Hedley Byrne v Heller

Answer 3

Economic loss caused by reliance on negligent statements

Question 4

D and F Estates v Church Commissioners

Answer 4

The plaintiffs were lessees of a flat in the block, where the plaster was shit. No damages awarded. The logic in D and F Estates and Murphy v Brentwood is that a builder is like the manufacturer of any other product. Tort duties within Donoghue v Stevenson are only owed in respect of damage done by the itme that is manufactured by the defendant.

Question 5

Targett v Torfaen BC

Answer 5

The bar on recovery where damage is done by a patent defect did not apply where a weekly tenant was injured when a handrail on a staircase gave way. He knew of the defect, but could not reasonably have done anything about it.

Question 6

Defective Premises Act 1972

Answer 6

Applies to builders, architects or other parties involved in provision of the dwelling. Only applies to dwellings, and action can be brought withing 6 years