8. Negligence: Duty of Care—Economic Loss

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lunney ◽  
Donal Nolan ◽  
Ken Oliphant
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Liability Rules ◽  
Pure Economic Loss

This chapter examines liability for economic loss in negligence. It discusses the basic exclusionary rule in respect of pure economic loss; defective product economic loss; the Hedley Byrne exception; the development of Hedley Byrne liability; Hedley Byrne and the three-stage Caparo test; and White v Jones. The final section of the chapter first considers an economic analysis of the liability rules in this area, and then introduces the debate between rights-based and policy-based critiques of the current law.

7. Special duty problems: economic loss

2021 ◽  
pp. 188-216
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
District Council ◽  
Secondary Consequence ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter explains when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants for purely economic loss. This differs from ‘consequential’ economic loss, where financial loss is suffered as a secondary consequence of another harm, such as personal injury or property damage. The tort of negligence distinguishes between these, using duty of care as a device to control whether and when claimants will be able to recover their pure economic losses. The discussions cover the meaning of ‘pure’ economic loss; exceptions to the exclusionary rule; claims for pure economic loss in negligence before Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990]; and extended applications of the principles established in Hedley Byrne v Heller [1963].

7. Special duty problems: economic loss

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
District Council ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter explains when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants for purely economic loss. The discussions cover the meaning of ‘pure’ economic loss; exceptions to the exclusionary rule; claims for pure economic loss in negligence before Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990]; and extended applications of the principles established in Hedley Byrne v Heller [1963].

7. Special duty problems: economic loss

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 186-214
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
District Council ◽  
Secondary Consequence ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter explains when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants for purely economic loss. This differs from ‘consequential’ economic loss, where financial loss is suffered as a secondary consequence of another harm, such as personal injury or property damage. The tort of negligence distinguishes between these, using duty of care as a device to control whether and when claimants will be able to recover their pure economic losses. The discussions cover the meaning of ‘pure’ economic loss; exceptions to the exclusionary rule; claims for pure economic loss in negligence before Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990]; and extended applications of the principles established in Hedley Byrne v Heller [1963].

The case of ‘losses in any event’: a question of duty, cause or damages?

Legal Studies ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 558-585
Author(s):  
Mark Stiggelbout
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
General Argument ◽  
The Real ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Careful Comparison

This paper considers the relevance of a finding that, even absent the defendant's unlawfulness, the private law claimant would have suffered the losses claimed. It provides a principled framework for considering the issues raised by such a finding of ‘losses in any event’, arguing that it should be distinguished both from causation of injury and from the scope of the defendant's duty of care, and that it should be treated as raising a question of damages. It highlights the need, particularly in pure economic loss cases, for a careful comparison of the real and the hypothetical losses so as to determine whether the latter would indeed have been losses in any event. In this regard, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd is subjected to close scrutiny. A more general argument advanced is that tort and contract both do and should adopt similar approaches in this field.

Hedley Byrne in the House of Lords: an interpretation

Legal Studies ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 376-389
Author(s):  
Nicholas J McBride ◽  
Andrew Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
House Of Lords

The House of Lords has now handed down decisions in six cases which have involved extended discussions of the scope of liability to compensate another for pure economic loss under the Hedley Byme principle. It seems reasonable to suppose that we can now arrive, on the basis of those decisions, at some conclusions as to when and why such liability arises. In this article we attempt to amve at such conclusions. In so doing we avoid using the usual terminology- ‘duty of care’, ‘proximity’, ‘just and reasonable’, ‘policy’, ‘reliance’, ‘assumption of responsibility’, ‘equivalent to contract’, even ‘negligence’-which an analysis of the scope and rationale of liability under Hedley Byme would be expected to employ.

11. The Tort of Negligence

2019 ◽  
pp. 299-334
Author(s):  
Lucy Jones
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference

This chapter discusses the difference between the law of torts and contract and criminal law. It explores the tort of negligence, considering the necessary elements for a claim of negligence, namely the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty of care, and reasonably foreseeable damage was caused by the breach of duty. The chapter considers the special requirements for the recovery of pure economic loss and for loss as a result of psychiatric injuries, looking at both primary and secondary victims. The principles relating to breach of a duty of care, including the standard of care, are discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the final element, considering the need for a causal link between the breach of duty by the defendant and the damage suffered by the claimant.

scholarly journals The Role of Experts in Assessing Damages – A Law and Economics Account

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 376-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Faure ◽  
Louis Visscher
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Economic Point ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Potential Problems

In this contribution we focus on the role of experts in the assessment of tort damages from an economic point of view. We distinguish two different aspects.First, we examine the role which economists might play in assessing damages in tort cases. This approach focuses on the insights that Law and Economics provides regarding the correct assessment of damages. We pay specific attention to two problematic forms of losses where economic insights may play an important role: pure economic loss and personal injury damage (both loss of income and compensation for immaterial losses due to fatal and non-fatal accidents).Second, we investigate from a Law and Economics point of view the role of experts in general (not only economists) in the assessment of damages. We discuss i.a. the question why experts may be involved in the assessment of damages, the potential problems (and the possible solutions) when using experts, and differences between party appointed experts and court appointed experts.It turns out that the economic analysis can provide a different, insightful viewpoint in some respects, such as the fact that market based mechanisms may help to provide incentives to party appointed experts to provide an accurate and objective damage assessment.

11. The Tort of Negligence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Jones
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference

This chapter discusses the difference between the Law of Torts and Contract and Criminal Law. It explores the tort of negligence, considering the necessary elements for a claim of negligence, namely the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty of care, and reasonably foreseeable damage was caused by the breach of duty. The chapter considers the special requirements for the recovery of pure economic loss and for loss as a result of psychiatric injuries, looking at both primary and secondary victims. The principles relating to breach of a duty of care, including the standard of care, are discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the final element, considering the need for a causal link between the breach of duty by the defendant and the damage suffered by the claimant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document