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.

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 Tortious liability for pure economic loss

1979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ευστάθιος Μπανάκας
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Comparative Examination ◽  
Individual Style

Financial harm may be caused in many different ways. It can be said that it appears in several different ’’types", each produced in distinct factual circumstances. Different "types" of financial harm may demand a different treatment by the law. The considerations that ought to determine the policy of the law vary together with the factual . circumstances, in which each particular type offinancial harm becomes manifested. Thence the need for a separate examination of the major, or "generic", types of such harm, a need that has already been - detected by Comparative lawyers writing on the subject.(20) The present study will concentrate on the problem ' of financial harm that is not the product of a harmful intention (21) . In the Common Law of Negligence this problem is known as the "pure economic loss" problem. The solutions given to it by English Law are compared to the solutions of the French Law of Torts, and to those of the law of Torts of the German Federal Republic (West Germany)(22). The compared Tort systems not only are leadingthe major legal traditions of our age, each employing its own individual "style" (23), but, also, operate in virtually similar social and economic environments. This should allow the comparison to expose more easily the true merits of any "stylistic" idiosyncrasies, thatthey might possess in this particular connection. The problem of pure economic, loss caused by erroneous advice or information is not examined in * detail in the present study. It has been already the subject of comprehensive Comparative examination (24).

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.

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.

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].

The core of pure economic loss

2007 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci ◽  
Hans-Bernd Schäfer
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
The Core ◽  
Pure Economic Loss

6. Deliberate infliction of economic loss

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley ◽  
Nicola Padfield
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Subject

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 torts that protect the claimant’s economic interests against deliberate harm. Some are best defined as particular types of forbidden conduct: such as deceit, intimidation, and conspiracy. Others are best defined as protecting particular economic interests, particularly the claimant’s interest in the performance of contracts to which the claimant is party.

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.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document