economic loss and psychiatric injury

• a claiment may claim if threy have:sustained injury
• a claimant may claim if they have;

  sustained injury, damaged property - due to negligence of another party.
• spartan steel v Martin + co


  damage to the factory could be claimed however, economic loss whilst the factory was closed could not be claimed. - Lord Denning
• pure economic loss


  monetary loss not due to injury or damage to property
• Weller v foot and mouth disease research

  claim was denied as it was pure economic loss (only money loss)
• negligent misstatement

  when party A makes a statement to B carelessly (A owes a duty of care to B).
• 2 party liability

  when A relies on advice/statement from B
• 3 party liability 


  when A makes a statement to B who passes it on to C - suffering a loss
• negligent misstatment requirements

  must be made negligently, must have been a 'special relationship' betwwen the parties.
• special relationship defined by

  Caparo v Dickman
• rules of negligent misstatement were clarifed by lord denning in:

  hedley byrne v heller + partners
• for negligent misstatement, all must be shown 


  special skill/ experience, reliance, no disclaimer, purpose, communicated directly to the claimant.
• special skill/knowledge 


  where the defendent is either qualified or pretends to be qualified to give advice.
• reliance


  advice given by defendent must be acted upon by claiment - must be proximate
• communicated directly to claiment

  cannot be through the tv, Radio or newspaper etc
• no disclaimer

  there must be no disclaimer to act as defence to advice
• purpose/knowledge


  the person who gave the advice must know the advice was required for a purpose / or know the claimant will act upon advice they gave
• negligent misstatement

  chaudry v prabhakar
• caparo v dickman

  special relationship
• hedley bryne v heller + partners

  negligent misstatement can be claimed if there is a special relationship
• dulieu v white


  a claim for nervous shock is valid when they suffer immediate and real fear for their safety
• hambrook v stokes

  a claim for nervous shock is valid when they suffer fear for their family members.
• bournhill v young 


  no claim may be made if the claimant was not proximate to the accident
• mcloughin v o'brien

  claims for someone not close to the accident may be made if they; know victims who were in the accident, the shock was received immedaitely
• primary victims


  those involved in the accident with either mental or physical injuries.
• secondary victims


  those who suffered mental injuries due to witnessing the accident
• page v smith

  mental injuries are just as damaging
• alcock v cheif constable of South Yorkshire

  has to have close ties to victim, shock is suffered during or immediately after the accident
• Chadwick v British railways 


  rescuers are primary victims
• white v chief constable of South Yorkshire 


  rescuers are a secondary victim unless there is a foreseeable physical injury
• mcfarlane v EE Caledonia 


  bystanders are not rescuers - must complete all Alock criteria to claim as secondary victim
• attia v British Gas


  claim for shock can be valid when witnessing destruction of own property
• sion v Hampstead health auth.

  no claim - no sudden event
• alcock criteria


  close tie - alcock v CC SY, geographical proximity - mcloughin v Brian, witnessed something horrifying - sion v Hampstead, sudden shock dulieu v white