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;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
what 2 categories can losses caused by negligence be split in to |
pecuniary and non pecuniary |
|
|
what is pecuniary loss |
Related to money |
|
|
what is non pecuniary loss |
loss not susceptible to precise arithmetical calculation like pain, suffering, mental distress |
|
|
what are the 2 categories that fall under pecuniary loss |
pure economic loss consequential economic loss |
|
|
what is pure economic loss |
financial loss stemming directly from the harm caused by the negligent act or omission |
|
|
what is consequential economic loss |
financial loss suffered as a result of another harm |
|
|
what case illustrates the diff between pure and other types of economic loss |
Spartan Steel & Alloys Lts v Martin Co |
|
|
what does the Spartan Steel case show |
a duty of care is owed only in respect of financial losses relating to damage directly caused by Ds negligence |
|
|
what policy considerations did Lord Denning state in Spartan Steel |
if claims of pure economic loss are allowed inflated claims might be made for lost profits that are simply not provable |
|
|
what is crushing liability |
one defendant from one careless act ends up being sustainably liable to numerous claimants |
|
|
whats another reason for the courts reluctance to extend a duty of care to pure financial losses |
floodgates argument more traditionally dealt with by contract law |
|
|
which case in an example of some exclusions to not being able to recover pure financial loss |
Hedley Byrne v Heller |
|
|
what happened in Hedley Byrne v Heller |
advertising agency asked to by ad space did several credit checks on company Easipower did these credit checks negligently and collapsed Hedley sought to claim the money back Hedley included exclusion clause restricting liability |
|
|
what was held in Hedley Byrne v Heller |
exclusion clause was valid you can only have valid pure economic loss where: theres a special relationship between parties party preparing advice voluntarily assumed the risk reliance on the advice/info reliance was reasonable in the circumstances |
|
|
which case closed the door for claims on pure economic loss relating to defective products or buildings |
Murphy v Brentwood District Council |
|
|
what were attitudes to pure economic loss in negligence before Hedley Byrne 1963 |
no recovery of pure economic loss in negligence |
|
|
what were attitudes to pure economic loss in negligence from 1963-83 |
expansion of the situation for which pure economic loss was recoverable |
|
|
what was phase 3 for pure economic loss in negligence attitudes like 1983-90 |
closing down the exceptions a retreat from a more generous position culminating in Caparo and Murphy |
