Law of Torts II ROADMAP -economic loss

Law of Torts II ROADMAP -economic loss - Law of Torts II...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Law of Torts II ROADMAP – Economic Loss Duty: What negligent act has caused the P to suffer from PURE economic loss? If D had made a misstatement, therefore negligent misstatement. If D had made an act, therefore negligent act. Disclaimers: Was there a statement mentioned which is considered as a disclaimer by the D of the statement which caused pure economic loss towards the P? (contracts) If yes, therefore no liability arises between the P and the D, as there is no assumption of responsibility from the D towards the P, as in Hedley Byrne. If no, proceed. Salient features approach (balancing act – First five are McHugh’s salient features): Reasonable foreseeability: Did the D have reasonable foreseeability of the harm occurring under pure economic loss? o If yes, therefore was able to take actions to possibly prevent harm from occurring towards the P. o If no, no DOC arises ( Perre ) Indeterminacy of liability: Was the economic loss towards the P provoked by any other incidents caused by the D? (Known as the ripple effect where the D causes a chain of economic loss) o If yes, therefore likely to not have a DOC arising, but check the other salient features ( Perre ). o If no, then the D’s act was direct, thus a greater chance at seeking liability. Autonomy of the individual: Was the autonomy of the individual for protecting their own business legitimately? (Eg: Illegal activity to gain market share) o If yes, therefore the common law will not require the D to be concerned with the effect of his or her conduct on the economic interest of other persons. o If no, therefore the D was acting in such a way that was inconsistent with their business proceedings, to gain extra market shares. Vulnerability: Was the P able to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm by the D from occurring in the first place? o If yes, therefore the P was not vulnerable to the harm suffered and could have taken reasonable steps to prevent harm from occurring. o If no, therefore the P was vulnerable to the harm. Knowledge of risk: Did the D have any knowledge of the risk and magnitude of harm occurring towards the P? o If yes, D knew about the risk and magnitude of the loss potentially occurring. o If yes, D had no knowledge about the risk and magnitude of the loss potentially occurring. Proximity (only if appropriate): Was the D close to the P based on a geographical sense? o If yes, state that D was within close proximity to the P at the time of the loss occurring. Also mention however that in Eyatt, it was held that proximity is not an overarching test. o If no, therefore consider whether to mention proximity or not.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Relationship: Was there a relationship between the D and P that is so close that a DOC arises? In other words, a connection between the parties? o
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 10

Law of Torts II ROADMAP -economic loss - Law of Torts II...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online