• 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)

    body and that cases should be struck out on this basis.The case of Waters v Comr of Police of the Metropolis [1997] concerned the alleged failure of the police to prevent sexual harassment. Again, this case was struck out on grounds of it being non actionable as the court was

  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. How do the Courts in England and Wales decide when a duty is owed ...

    skill, by which neglect the plaintiff, without contributory negligence on his part, has suffered injury to his person or property."4 Adding that "there may be an obligation of such a duty from one person to another although there is no contract between them."5 This was later to be expanded upon

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

    Lord Millett went further to state that "a requirement of subjective dishonesty introduces an unnecessary and unjustified distinction between the elements of the equitable claim and those of the tort of wrongful interference with the performance of a contract" (at para.127).

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

    to occur if they failed to exercise proper control of supervision; in the particular circumstances they prima facie owed a duty of care to the respondent?? The damage to Mark?s property is foreseeable by the reasonable man in Ds? shoes, given the knowledge that, in the particular circumstances, it is likely to occur if they failed to supervise the youths.

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

    However, there are considerable problems in converting into legislative form all the issues that have arisen in the case law governing liability for psychiatric damage. For example, as Handford and Mullany points out, that the Australian jurisdiction does not canvass matters such as relationship beyond the family sphere, modern means

  1. Economic Loss Problem Question. Jessica is unable to do any sewing for several ...

    Stephen reports that the premises are in a sound structural condition. On the basis of this report, Creditwise Mortgage Company grants Jessica a mortgage to buy the premises. A month later, XED Exec Clothing, having received several orders from Jessica, is declared bankrupt and unable to pay its creditors.

  2. Liability Without Fault

    if orders under Section 140 are passed immediately to ensure relief quickly effectively and positively[9]. The provisions contained in Section 140 are benevolent and are intended to offer financial aid, in the shape of interim award, promptly to the victim or legal representatives of the victim of the accident on the basis of ?No Fault liability?.

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