5. Negligence: duty of care problem areas

2020 ◽  
pp. 106-145
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan ◽  
Vera Bermingham
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Liability

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. The tort of negligence originated as a remedy for property damage and physical injury. However, recovery of compensation for psychiatric injury and pure economic loss, in cases where they were not caused by physical injury or property damage, has proved difficult. Duty of care for psychiatric injury is contingent upon whether the claimant is a primary or secondary victim. This chapter discusses the policy reasons for limiting duty of care for psychiatric injury, the mechanisms by which the law limits duty of care for psychiatric injury, the meaning of ‘pure economic loss’, and the development of the Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) principle of liability for negligent statements. The chapter also examines the ‘thin skull’ rule, which applies to psychiatric injury in the same way as to physical injury.

7. General defences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Liability

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. The tort of negligence originated as a remedy for property damage and physical injury. However, recovery of compensation for psychiatric injury and pure economic loss, in cases where they were not caused by physical injury or property damage, has proved difficult. Duty of care for psychiatric injury is contingent upon whether the claimant is a primary or secondary victim. This chapter discusses the policy reasons for limiting duty of care for psychiatric injury, the mechanisms by which the law limits duty of care for psychiatric injury, the meaning of ‘pure economic loss’, and the development of the Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) principle of liability for negligent statements. The chapter also examines the ‘thin skull’ rule, which applies to psychiatric injury in the same way as to physical injury.

2. Negligence: duty of care

2020 ◽  
pp. 23-58
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan ◽  
Vera Bermingham
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Key Points ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Way ◽  
Public Bodies

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Negligence is a tort in its own right and involves an unintentional wrong as opposed to trespass which involves an intentional wrong. It has three main elements: duty of care (whether the defendant owes the claimant a duty of care), breach (whether the defendant has breached that duty), and damage (whether that breach has caused damage of a legally recognized kind to the claimant). Duty of care is determined by proximity, foreseeability, and policy and is most likely to be established in cases of positive acts which cause physical injury or property damage. This chapter provides an overview of the history of negligence and discusses the function of duty of care in negligence. It also considers the way duty of care has been defined and developed and applies the principles of duty of care in the areas of omissions and liability of public bodies.

4. Pure economic loss and negligent misstatement

2021 ◽  
pp. 33-49
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Professional Services ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Injury Death ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
District Council ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on pure economic loss, which is loss that is not derived from physical injury, death, or property damage. It may be consequential, that is resulting from the acquisition of a defective product or property. More commonly, the issue arises due to a negligent misstatement, or provision of professional services. This is an area of commercial and professional importance where there has been a trend towards expansion in the area of negligent misstatement. The two key cases in this area are Murphy v Brentwood District Council and Hedley Byrne v Heller.

4. Breach of duty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Key Points ◽  
History Of ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Way ◽  
Public Bodies

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Negligence is a tort in its own right and involves an unintentional wrong as opposed to trespass which involves an intentional wrong. It has three main elements: duty of care (whether the defendant owes the claimant a duty of care), breach (whether the defendant has broken that duty), and damage (whether that breach has caused damage of a legally recognized kind to the claimant). Duty of care is determined by proximity, foreseeability, and policy and is most likely to be established in cases of positive acts which cause physical injury or property damage. This chapter provides an overview of the history of negligence and discusses the function of duty of care in negligence. It also considers the way duty of care has been defined and developed and applies the principles of duty of care in the areas of omissions and liability of public bodies.

4. Pure economic loss and negligent misstatement

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Professional Services ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Injury Death ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
District Council ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on pure economic loss, which is loss that is not derived from physical injury, death, or property damage. It may be consequential, that is resulting from the acquisition of a defective product or property. More commonly, the issue arises due to a negligent misstatement, or provision of professional services. This is an area of commercial and professional importance where there has been a trend towards expansion in the area of negligent misstatement. The two key cases in this area are Murphy v Brentwood District Council and Hedley Byrne v Heller.

4. Pure economic loss and negligent misstatement

2019 ◽  
pp. 32-47
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Professional Services ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Injury Death ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
District Council ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on pure economic loss, which is loss that is not derived from physical injury, death, or property damage. It may be consequential, that is resulting from the acquisition of a defective product or property. More commonly, the issue arises due to a negligent misstatement, or provision of professional services. This is an area of commercial and professional importance where there has been a trend towards expansion in the area of negligent misstatement. The two key cases in this area are Murphy v Brentwood District Council and Hedley Byrne v Heller.

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.

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.

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.

Expectation Losses, Negligent Omissions and the Tortious Duty of Care

1996 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law

In English law, the recovery of pure economic loss falls mainly within the province of the law of contract. Only in very limited circumstances does the law of tort provide for the recovery of such losses. As Cardozo C.J. explained in Ultramares Corporation v. Touched, tort is concerned not to permit “liability in an indeterminate amount, for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class”. Notwithstanding this reticence, their Lordships' speeches, though not the final decision, in the seminal case of Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller and Partners Ltd. provided a notable inroad into the rigidity of this stance. Since Hedley Byrne, the question has become, instead, how far, not if, pure economic loss is and should be recoverable in the law of negligence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document