Summary
Summary Negligence Part 2 Revision
- Module
- Tort law
- Institution
- Cambridge University (CAM)
A Tort law revision summary on negligence liability. Received a 2:1 mark from Cambridge University!
[Show more]
Content preview
TORT SUPERVISION IV REVISIONNegligence: Duty of Care (Part II) – Pure Economic Loss and Psychiatric Injury
I. PURE ECONOMIC LOSS
Pure economic loss – financial damage not accompanied by any physical damage to person/property:
requires more than reasonable foreseeability aka. HB principle
Consequential economic loss – accompanied by physical damage; this requires only reasonable
foreseeability
BASIC HEDLEY BYRNE PRINCIPLE
Assumption of Responsibility in circumstances akin to contract
Spartan Steel & Co. Ltd – can’t ground duty of care on reasonable foreseeability that V would suffer
pure economic loss because of floodgates fear & interest in economic loss = not important to justify DoC
Hedley Byrne – HoL two stage test; liability arises in cases of negligent misstatement if:
1. There is an assumption of responsibility (either expressly – Williams b Natural Life
Health Foods – or impliedly – Spring v Guardian Services), in that D knows or ought to
have known that the claimant will rely on the information D gives to him
2. The claimant was reasonable in relying on this information
Limitations of Hedley Principle
1. Advice given without responsibility. Can not rely on Hedley as long as A makes clear there is no
responsibility; s2(2) UCTA 1977 – duty of care arises if A was in the ‘course of business’ in advising B
2. Social Occasion – can’t use Heldey unless A explicitly assures B she can safely rely on advice
(Chaudry v. Prabakhar)
3. Non-expert – if A makes clear he is not an expert, courts usually find A indicated advice couldn’t be
safely relied on (Mutual Life & Citzens Assurance Co. )
4. Expert is not liable to his readers – Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co
5. Advice by a third party – claimant’s claim was rejected by HoL in Williams v Natural Life Health
Foods; lack of contact between D and claimants
6. White v Jones – main question – not whether the defendant had assumed responsibility to draft a will,
but whether this responsibility was owed to beneficiaries of will with whom he had no contract.
Something other than Hedley must’ve been used
Extended Hedley Principle/Difficult Cases
Hedley Byrne principle extended from negligent misstatement to possible liability for negligent performance/non-
performance of a service to give rise to a duty of care. This doesn’t explain these difficult cases:
Junior Brooks – duty of care arose despite no contract between D (subcontractor) and V. This –
described as a “unique” case only
White v Jones & Smith v Eric Bush: extended HB to proximate third party (beneficiaries). NB: both
of these cases required more than assumption of responsibility of a task, so was something more than HB
principle used?
Spring v Guardian Assurance – D had duty to give V a good reference prepared w/ reasonable degree
of skill and care when he agreed to provide a reference
Phelps v Hillingdon LBC – psychologists owe patients DoC to test them with reasonable degree of skill
& care
Task only has to be performed with same degree of skill & care indicated – Philips v William Whiteley
Caparo Test
In difficult cases where HB not enough/assumption of responsibility doesn’t arise – turn to Caparo test of
foreseeability, proximity & fairness, reasonableness &justice:
HM Customs & Excise v Barclays Bank: established two-step process to generate DoC in economic
loss cases:
1. Apply the Hedley Byrne principle first. If an assumption of responsibility can be
established, there is no need for further investigation. If it cannot be established then,
2. Apply the Caparo test.
II. PSYCHIATRIC INJURY
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller am_lawgraduate. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £4.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53340 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now