Economic Loss and Psychiatric Harm Flashcards
Murphy v Brentwood DC
Economic
LA is not liable in tort for negligent application of building regulations where the resulting injuries are discovered before physical injury occurs
=> Loss is purely economic
Spartan Steel v Martin
Economic
- Could claim for loss due to damage to their own property but not 3rd part property - can claim damages due to loss of product they were building but not due to electricity being off
- important to stick strictly to policy
Weller and Co v Foot and mouth disease research institute
PEL no claim
- auctioneer claim for loss of profit had cattle not been infected.
- Not caused by physical damage, caused by closure of the market which is purely economic.
- Physical damage to cattle but they didn’t belong to C
Hedley Byrne
Economic
Duty of care in case of negligent statement causing pure economic loss when there is a special relationship between the persons giving and receiving the advice.
1. assumption of responsibility by D
2. reasonable reliance by C
Caparo - expanded Hedley Byrne test
Economic
Four criteria:
1. Advisor knew the purpose for which the advice was required
2. Advisor knew the advice would be communicated to advisee
3. Advisor knew the advisee was likely to act upon the advice without independent inquiry
4. Advice was acted on by advisee to its detriment
Morgan Crucible Co Plc
Economic
Identity of bidder known and nature of transaction known so proximity can be established
Choudhry
Economic
Usually no duty in social situation for advice given
- exception here. C and D were friends but C made it clear she would be relying on his skill and judgement.
Spring v Guardian Assurance plc
Economic
- former employer provided reference to potential future employer which was neg.ly prepared and v unfavourable
- C claimed for economic loss
- Yes Duty
White v Jones
Economic
- Solicitor did not finish a will before the testator died - old will took effect.
- Found to have a duty to beneficiary in the new will.
- Could have clearly foreseen this result if he hadn’t finished will.
- Extended Hedley Byrne from neg statements to neg provision of professional services
Exclusion of liability limitations in statute
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Consumer Rights Act 2015
Smith v Eric S Bush
Factors in deciding reasonableness of contract:
- were the parties of equal bargaining power?
- for advice: would it have been reasonably practicable to obtain it from an alternative source accounting for cost and time considerations?
- How difficult is the task for which liability is excluded?
- What are the practical consequences , accounting for the sums of money at stake and ability of parties to bear loss involved, particularly in light of insurance?
Page v Smith
Psychiatric
Identified primary and secondary victims
Primary: - was in the actual area of danger; or
- reasonably believed he was in danger.
Secondary: - witnesses injury to someone else; or
- fears for the safety of another person
Daleieu
Psychiatric
Pregnant, working in a pub, suffered miscarriage when Ds drove car into pub negligently => duty established
Alcock
Psychiatric: test for secondary victims
Hillsborough disaster - TV viewers and spectators who were all relatives of victims - PTSD
Test:
- Foreseeability of psychiatric harm: reasonably foreseeable a person of normal fortitude in C’s position would suffer harm
- Proximity of relationship: close relationship of love and affection.
- Proximity in time and space: present at accident or its immediate aftermath
- Proximity of perception: must see or hear the accident or immediate accident with own senses.
For TV: not able to see identifiable victims. Live might be sufficient if “the impact of the live TV pictures would be as great, if not greater, than the actual sight of the accident”
McLoughlin
Psychiatric
Saw family 1hr after the accident, still in same condition as had been at scene of accident - Alcock reinforced this.
