Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
13 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Murphy v Brentwood DC |
No duty of care is owed in respect of pure economic loss, therefore the loss is not recoverable |
|
|
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co Ltd |
Economic loss resulting from damage to third party property not recoverable |
|
|
Hedley Byrne v Heller |
A duty of care arises in a case of negligent statements causing pure economic loss when there is a special relationship between the persons giving and receiving the advice |
|
|
Hedley Byrne v Heller, 2 elements to a special relationship |
1) An assumption of responsibility by the defendant 2) Reasonable reliance by the claimant |
|
|
Caparo Industries v Dickman and others |
Following 4 criteria to be satisfied for a defendant to have assumed responsibility towards a claimant: 1) The adviser knew the purpose for which the advice was required 2) The adviser knew that the advice would be communicated to the advisee 3) The adviser knew that the advisee was likely to act on the advice without independent inquiry 4) The advice was acted on by the advisee to its detriment |
|
|
Chaudhry v Prabhakar |
General rule is that, usually, no duty of care will be owed in respect of advice given in a social situation because there is no assumption of responsibility |
|
|
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd |
A claimant can rely on a claim in tort even though he also has a contract with the defendant for the professional services, but only if the two duties are consistent |
|
|
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 |
1) Act also applies to claims in Negligence 2) Defendant must be acting in the course of a business 3) Defendant cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence 4) Defendant can exclude or restrict liability only if the exclusion satisfies the requirements of reasonableness |
|
|
Smith v Eric S Bush |
When deciding the question of reasonableness in excluding liability: 1) Were the parties of equal bargaining power? 2) Would it have been reasonably practicable to obtain the advise from an alternative source? 3) How difficult is the task being undertaken? 4) What are the practical consequences involved? |
|
|
Page v Smith |
Primary victims: Owed a duty of care in relation to their pure psychiatric harm, provided the risk of physical injury was foreseeable. Not necessary for the risk of psychiatric harm to be foreseeable. |
|
|
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police |
To determine whether duty of care is owed for pure psychiatric harm to secondary victims, ALL must be satisfied: 1) Foreseeability of psychiatric harm 2) Close relationship of love and affection 3) Present at the accident or its immediate aftermath 4) Must see or hear accident, or its immediate aftermath, with own senses |
|
|
McLoughlin v O'Brian |
A claimant cannot be compensated if the event is communicated by a third party |
|
|
White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police |
A rescuer does not hold a special status different from other accident victims who suffer only pure psychiatric harm. If a rescuer has been in the actual area of danger, he is a primary victim. If rescuer not in the actual area of danger, he is a secondary victim. |
