Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Negligence - Quick Summary

    Uploaded by

    Wayn Yap
    5 views5 pages
    This document discusses economic loss and duty of care in negligence cases. It defines economic loss as lost money without property damage or bodily injury. The neighbor principle from Donoghue v Stevenson established that a duty of care is owed when harm is reasonably foreseeable. Later cases like Caparo Industries added that proximity and fairness are also required. Pure economic loss can be recovered in special relationships like accountant-client based on Hedley Byrne v Heller. When answering problem questions, a party must establish duty, breach, causation, foreseeability of damage, and consider defenses like contributory negligence.

    Original Description:

    ok

    Original Title

    Negligence - quick summary (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document discusses economic loss and duty of care in negligence cases. It defines economic loss as lost money without property damage or bodily injury. The neighbor principle from Donoghue v Stevenson established that a duty of care is owed when harm is reasonably foreseeable. Later cases like Caparo Industries added that proximity and fairness are also required. Pure economic loss can be recovered in special relationships like accountant-client based on Hedley Byrne v Heller. When answering problem questions, a party must establish duty, breach, causation, foreseeability of damage, and consider defenses like contributory negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views5 pages

    Negligence - Quick Summary

    Uploaded by

    Wayn Yap
    This document discusses economic loss and duty of care in negligence cases. It defines economic loss as lost money without property damage or bodily injury. The neighbor principle from Donoghue v Stevenson established that a duty of care is owed when harm is reasonably foreseeable. Later cases like Caparo Industries added that proximity and fairness are also required. Pure economic loss can be recovered in special relationships like accountant-client based on Hedley Byrne v Heller. When answering problem questions, a party must establish duty, breach, causation, foreseeability of damage, and consider defenses like contributory negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5

    ECONOMIC LOSS – Physical damage to

    property/bodily injury

    DUTY OF CARE
    Donoghue v Stevenson
    - Neighbour principle
    - Objective test
    - -Reasonableman test
    - Compare A with another person in the same
    position/circumstance
    - Foresee any harm/damage to a person like B

    - Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]


    - - Reasonable foreseeability;
    - - Proximity; and
    - - Just, fair and reasonable

    Examples:
    A manufacturer – B customer
    A doctor – B patient
    A driver of car – B pedestrian
    1
    PURE ECONOMIC LOSS – only lost money
    – no damage to property/no bodily injury

    Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners – based


    on special relationship
    Example: A accountant – B client

     SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP – 5 key


    elements
    1. D possesses a skill or expertise;
    2. D voluntarily assumes responsibility for
    his statements;
    3. Known user;
    4. Known purpose;
    5. Reasonable reliance

    Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]


    - Reasonable foreseeability;
    - Proximity; and
    - Just, fair and reasonable
    2
    ANSWERING PROBLEM QUESTION

    1. Whether A owes a duty of care to B?


    Example – A, a driver knocks B a pedestrian
    down
    Donoghue v Stevenson
    - Neighbour principle
    - Objective test – reasonableman test – A owes
    duty of care to B if any reasonable person in
    the same position (other people who drive car)
    can foresee harm/damage to any other road
    user.

    Note: Must explain reasonableman –that is


    another person in same position/circumstance

    2. Whether A breached the standard of care


    required of him?
    - Objective test – reasonableman test
    Note: Must explain reasonableman –another
    person in same position/circumstance
    3
    What is standard actually? – steps or
    precautions a reasonable person will take in the
    same position/circumstances – eg follow road
    rules etc.

    Case: Nettleship v Weston

    3.Whether A caused the loss/damage?


    Case: Barnett v Kensington Hospital

    Cause basically here refers to the failure of A to


    take the steps/precautions stated in 2 . That is
    “but for “ test. But for the failure of A to take the
    steps and precautions the damage would not
    have occurred.

    4.Whether the damage/loss incurred by B


    was reasonably foreseeable?
    Example : B broke his leg/died
    Case: Wagon Mound

    4
    Objective test – reasonable test – whether
    any reasonable person in the position of A
    would be able to foresee the type damage
    incurred by B ie broke his leg/died/lost
    money.

    Defences:

    Contributory negligence

    Voluntary assumption of risk

    You might also like