12. Economic Loss, the Liability of Professional Advisors, and Psychiatric Injury

Business Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Marson ◽  
Katy Ferris
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Crucial Importance ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
Professional Activities ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Nervous Shock

This chapter continues on from the previous chapter in discussing liability in negligence for physical damage and considers the potential liability that businesses and individuals may face when they provide advice in the nature of their business, when they cause economic losses not associated with physical damage, and where the claimant suffers a psychiatric injury or nervous shock due to the acts of the tortfeasor. Recently, there has been an increase in instances of imposing liability on employers for the stress and associated health problems suffered by their employees. In the absence of physical damage, restrictions are placed on the imposition of liability for pure economic loss, although such loss has been widened to include damages for negligent misstatements. Of crucial importance is that businesses are aware of the implications of providing information in the course of their professional activities that may cause an investor or client loss through negligence.

12. Non-Physical Damage and Liability for Economic Loss

Business Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 300-317
Author(s):  
James Marson ◽  
Katy Ferris
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Crucial Importance ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
Professional Activities ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Nervous Shock

This chapter continues on from the previous chapter in discussing liability in negligence for physical damage and considers the potential liability that businesses and individuals may face when they provide advice in the nature of their business, when they cause economic losses not associated with physical damage, and where the claimant suffers a psychiatric injury or nervous shock due to the acts of the tortfeasor. Recently, there has been an increase in instances of imposing liability on employers for the stress and associated health problems suffered by their employees. In the absence of physical damage, restrictions are placed on the imposition of liability for pure economic loss, although such loss has been widened to include damages for negligent misstatements. Of crucial importance is that businesses are aware of the implications of providing information in the course of their professional activities that may cause an investor or client loss through negligence.

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].

14. Deceit

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Angus Johnston ◽  
Basil Markesinis
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
False Statement ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Common ◽  
Modern Form

This chapter discusses the tort of deceit. The common-law rules concerning liability for dishonesty were synthesised to create the tort of deceit at the end of the eighteenth century in Pasley v. Freeman, and the tort takes its modern form from the decision of the House of Lords in Derry v. Peek in 1889. Most of the cases concern non-physical damage, that is to say, financial or pure economic loss, although the tort can also extend to cover personal injuries and damage to property. The requirements of liability are as follows: the defendant must make a false statement of existing fact with knowledge of its falsity and with the intention that the claimant should act on it, with the result (4) that the claimant acts on it to his detriment.

Distinguishing between property damage and pure economic loss in negligence: a personality thesis

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 481-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
The Self ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Law

The law of negligence favours redress for damage to property interests over redress for damage to mere economic interests. The question arises whether this preference can be justified. In endeavouring to answer it, the author surveys existing reasons given by courts and commentators for maintaining a distinction between property and economic interests. Each of these reasons, which collectively focus upon the ‘problematic’ nature of economic losses, is found to be either ad hoe in nature or without substantial explanatory power. However, it is submitted that the distinction is explicable on the basis that, whereas an individual's personality is partly constituted by the property that he or she owns, so that property can be seen as essential to the ways in which individuals constitute and define themselves, no such claim can be made with respect to mere abstract holdings of wealth. Although wealth permits the acquisition of property and participation in activities and experiences which might help to constitute and define the self in the future, the very fact that wealth has not been transposed into these things precludes it from being considered as important as actual holdings of property. The protection of property interests ought, therefore, to precede the protection of mere economic interests.

scholarly journals Nervous Shock, Nervous Courts: The ANNS/Kamloops Test to the Rescue

1969 ◽  
pp. 553
Author(s):  
Louise Belanger-Hardy
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Standard Test ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Uniform Approach ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Current Controversy ◽  
Nervous Shock

This article examines the tests employed by the courts in determining liability in tort in cases of psychiatric damage or nervous shock. The author explores the current controversy surrounding what criteria should be used in determining if and when a duty of care should be established. The article focuses on the development of an analytical framework to be used in establishing a duty of care in cases of psychiatric damage. The author begins with an examination of the development of the law in this area and how the courts in Canada are addressing the issue today. Here the author explains that Canadian courts have not adopted a uniform approach in determining issues of establishing a duty of care. The author then moves on to a discussion of the new primary/secondary victim paradigm recently developed in the United Kingdom, but argues against its incorporation as a model for Canada. Instead the author argues that the Anns/Kamloops test should be adopted as the standard test to determine issues of duty of care intort cases of psychiatric damage. In reaching this conclusion the author is supported by the approachof the courts in duty of care issues on pure economic loss cases.

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].

scholarly journals Understanding the resilience and mental health impacts of natural disasters in India: A narrative review

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sangram Kishor Patel ◽  
Gopal Agrawal ◽  
Bincy Mathew
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Natural Disasters ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Longitudinal Research ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Physical Damage

The purpose of this study is to understand the linkages between natural disasters and their impact on the mental health of people as well as associated resilience mechanisms in India. Natural disasters affect not only the physical environment but also the economy, social life, and well-being of the population. In addition to the loss of precious lives and economic losses, disasters affect the natural growth and mental health of the affected populations to a great extent. It is extremely challenging to quantify the true scale of damage caused by a disaster because physical damage is visible, but hidden impacts could be much more severe and have catastrophic effects on the socioeconomic growth of the affected families and areas. Against this background and with the limited available evidence, this study has tried to understand how disasters lead to poor mental health among the affected populations around the globe and tried to conceptualize this in the Indian context. Our review documents the different pathways for disasters to adversely affect mental health, particularly among vulnerable populations. The review also highlights how an increased frequency of disasters with climate change can lead to a post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder, and depression. Changes in climate and global warming may require populations to migrate, which can lead to acculturation stress. It can also lead to increased rates of physical illnesses, which secondarily would be associated with psychological distress. This research is an initial step in bringing this important issue forward in the context of Sustainable Development Goals and outlining that better policies need to be designed for prevention, services, and psychological counseling of mental health problems due to disasters. This study also suggests for more longitudinal research to understand the development of disaster-related mental health problems and to develop adequate mitigation strategies.

5. Negligence: property and economic losses

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley ◽  
Nicola Padfield
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Cutting Edge ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
The Core ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Special Relationships ◽  
Surrounding Areas

Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. This chapter discusses negligence liability for property and economic losses. It covers the distinction between property damage and pure economic loss; ‘special relationships’ and negligent misstatement; the cutting edge of liability; organizing concepts; and the influence of surrounding areas of law.

14. Deceit

2019 ◽  
pp. 453-457
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Zoe Adams
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
False Statement ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Common ◽  
Modern Form

This chapter discusses the tort of deceit. The common-law rules concerning liability for dishonesty were synthesised to create the tort of deceit at the end of the eighteenth century in Pasley v. Freeman, and the tort takes its modern form from the decision of the House of Lords in Derry v. Peek in 1889. Most of the cases concern non-physical damage, that is to say, financial or pure economic loss, although the tort can also extend to cover personal injuries and damage to property. The requirements of liability are as follows: the defendant must make a false statement of existing fact with knowledge of its falsity and with the intention that the claimant should act on it, with the result (4) that the claimant acts on it to his detriment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document