Pure Economic Loss Flashcards
1
Q
Elements
A
- duty of care- novel
- breach
- damage
2
Q
to establish a duty of care…
A
- classification of damage.
pure economic loss= definition= amount of loss.
category of p/e/l (caltex): definition
state that multi-factor approach applied: sullivan v Moody - duty of care
2.1 reasonable foreseeability.
2.2 ascertained class test (Gibbs and Mason JJ).
- Def had knowledge or means of knowing of the Pl. as an individual rather than a member of an unascertained class at the time of the breach. As a class that will be likely to suffer loss as a consequence of the negligence.
- important if there were signs etc. or if the ef. had worked for the company before.
2.3 ascertainable class test: Fortuna
Def had knowledge or means of knowing the pl. as an ascertainable class of vulnerable persons unable to protect themselves from harm.
- related companies
- contractual right
-common enterprise etc.
- insurance does not apply.
2.4 five salient features (stephens J).
requires a sufficiently close relationship between the parties. Established via:
- def’s knowledge of the likelihood of economic loss occurring as a result of the harm.
- knowledge of the property and its use.
- loss results from the def’s neglgient infliction on a third party’s propety.
- damages claimed are as a direct result of the detriment suffered by the Pl.
2.4 Physical propinquity test: Jacobs J
DoC are owed to those in physical proximity to the place where the negligence of the def. had its physical effect and that a physical effect on the person or property of the Pl. was foreseeable as a result.
- property affected can arguably be a contractual right etc. which is then sufficiently close to the damage to the property.
2.5 Other Fortuna factors: - def’s knowledge that the pipe was likely, when damages, to produce economic loss for those who relied upon it.
- indeterminate liability?
- damage flowed as a result of activities within the def’s control.
