• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Duty of care and economic loss - major cases.

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐DUTY OF CARE: ECONOMIC LOSS Basic Distinctions The law draws a distinction between: 1. pure economic loss; and, 1. economic loss which is directly consequential of reasonably foreseeable physical damage. The law also distinguishes between: 1. pure economic loss caused by negligent misstatement; and, 1. pure economic loss caused by a negligent act of the defendant. Pure Economic Loss There is no liability for pure economic loss in the absence of a contract between the claimant and the defendant. In Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks (1875) L.R. 10 QB 453 Blackburn J held that building contractors could not recover extra expenses incurred in finishing a tunnel after water, from the defendant?s works had flooded the tunnel and nearby land. Although the flooding was caused by the defendant?s negligence, there was no contract between the claimant and the defendant and no duty was therefore owed. Blackburn J said ??the question arises, can Cattle sue in his own name for the loss which he has in fact sustained, in consequence of the damage, which the defendants have done to the property of Knight, causing him, Cattle, to lose money under his contract? We think he cannot.? This was accepted and applied by Widgery J in Weller & Co. v. Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966] 1 QB 569. ...read more.


We may not be able to draw the line with precision, but we can always say on which side of it any particular case falls … Where, again, is the line to be drawn? Only where “in the particular case the good sense of the judge decides.”” This was applied by the Court of Appeal in Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v. Martin & Co. (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27. The defendants’ employees were digging up a road when they negligently damaged an electric cable. The defendants knew that this was the direct supply from the power station to the claimants’ factory. The claimants were without electricity until the Electricity Board was able to repair the cable and, immediately the power supply failed, they had to pour molten metal out of their furnace to prevent the metal solidifying and damaging it. As the claimants could not keep the metal at the correct temperature and complete the “melt”, the metal depreciated in value by £368 and they lost a profit from the sale of the metal from that melt of £400. They could also have completed four further melts during the power cut and their loss of profit from those melts was £1,767. In an action for negligence against the defendants, the claimants claimed all three sums as damages, a total of £2,535. ...read more.


Church Commissioners for England and Wales [1988] 2 All ER 992. The Hyde Park Property Development Co. Ltd, which went into liquidation in October 1980, employed Wates Ltd to build a block of flats in West London. Wates Ltd employed a sub contractor to do the plastering work in the flats. The plastering work was carried out negligently. The block of flats was sold to the Church Commissioners. The Church Commissioners leased one of the flats to D & F Estates, who let the flat to Mr and Mrs Tillman. Fifteen years after the flats were built, the plaster began to come away from the walls. The claimants sued the church Commissioners and Wates Ltd. Here action failed in the House of Lords. Lord Bridge said: ?If a builder erects a structure containing a latent defect which is dangerous to persons or property, he will be liable in tort for injury to persons or damage to property resulting from that dangerous defect. But if the defect becomes apparent before any injury or damage has been caused, the loss sustained by the building owner is purely economic. The loss can be recovered if it flows from breach of a relevant contractual duty, but in the absence of a special relationship of proximity it is not recoverable in tort.? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    'The existence of a duty of care is ultimately a question of policy'. Discuss.

    4 star(s)

    Most relevant to the case, the third requirement provided that the imposition of a duty should be fair, just and reasonable in regards to policy. In examining how far policy decisions are extended to provide defences to public bodies, the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] can

  2. Duty of Care.

    Barnes v Hampshire County Council [1969] The school had led the children out 5 min earlier. A child ran across the road and met with an accident. The school was held liable since letting the child go at the correct time would mean that the parent would have picked the child up.

  1. Assisting a trustee's breach of fiduciary duty.

    or, as seems to be the case with Mr Leach, that the defendant hardly gave any active consideration to the moral issues at all and merely assumed that it was committing no wrong. Mr Leach appeared to have taken a restrictive view of his professional responsibilities, thereby preventing him from

  2. Tort Law Problem Case. The Plaintiff (widow of the deceased) namely Mrs Fogg is ...

    The appellant board engaged him, paid him, prescribed the jobs he should undertake and alone could dismiss him." The hired employee is in charge but the real control and responsibility is of the institute/employer because it has ultimate authority to dismiss.

  1. A Critical Examination of the Concept of Breach of Duty of Care

    a better safeguard, does not necessarily make the manufacturer legally liable to a person injured by that product. The manufacturer is not a guarantor that nobody will get hurt in using its product, and a product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous merely because it is possible to be injured while using it.

  2. Does policy limit the defendant's liability?

    in their duty of protecting the claimant against an attack, they (police) claimed immunity under policy which states that the police owed no duty of care to victims.8 This is contradictory to Article 6 in the ECHR, which establishes the rights to a fair trial for all.9 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

  1. Negligence Problem Question - a fire at Amber Valley School damages Mark's property.

    Next, the courts may consider whether the harm occurred was likely to be serious. On the facts, the fire caused damage to Mark?s property and it is likely to be many weeks before the business can reopen and Mark stands to lose many thousands of pounds in lost profits.

  2. McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above ...

    It is the prospect of such an undignified spectacle, which has led the Law Commission to recommend replacing the rebuttable common law presumptions of close ties of love and affection with conclusive presumptions in statutory form. The Commission?s proposals would vastly improve the situation while still maintaining control over claims.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work