Week 6 Law

• Remedies for negligence

  The principle remedy for negligence = damages

  • Compensation for economic losses arising from physical injury or damage to property.
  • "Pure economic loss"
• "Pure economic loss" 


  Pure economic loss is financial damage suffered as the result of the negligent act of another party which is not accompanied by any physical damage to a person or property, only recoverable if there is a special relationship.

  E.g. you purchased a toaster for £25. Due to negligence in the manufacturing process, it exploded and set fire to your house:

  • Negligence damages would be awarded for losses sustained to property in the house, losses resulting from smoke inhalation, but the £25 purchase price would not be recoverable as this is pure economic loss
• Remoteness of damages

  For damages to be recoverable, they must be of a type that is "reasonably foreseeable". E.g. a loss/damage/type of injury that a reasonable person would have foreseen.
• The Wagon Mound case (1961)


  • Due to defendant's negligence, oil spilled into the claimant's wharf.
  • Oil caught fire, causing serious damage to the wharf.
  • Held: fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable.
• Egg-shell skull principle or take your victim as you find them

  • If the type of the damage is reasonably foreseeable the defendant is liable.
  • The severity of the damage or injury is irrelevant.
• Defences to a claim in negligence


  1. Contributory negligence - partial defence
  2. Volenti non fit injuria - complete or outright defence
  3. Exclusion clauses - complete or outright defence
• Contributory negligence


  Where a claimants own negligence contributes to some of his injuries - a judge will reduce the level of damages awarded.

  • This is partial defence
  • The onus is on the defendant to show the claimant was at fault for some of their own injuries
  • Sayers v Harlow (1958) - Women trapped in public toilet fell and injured herself trying to climb out
• Volenti non fit injuria 


  "To a willing person, no harm is done"

  Principle:

  • If someone freely consents to being placed at risk, they cannot then sue if they get hurt.
• Volenti non fit injuria - ICA v Shantwell (1964) 


  • Two brothers, employed by ICI, were certified and experienced in wiring up and checking the safety of some explosives.
  • They tested some explosives without observing strict safety rules, they claimed damages against the employer.
  • Held: by their conduct the brothers consented to the risks of their actions and therefore volenti applied.
• Exclusion clauses


  • A valid exclusion clause constitutes a viable and complete defence against an action for negligence.
  • Must be validly incorporate/made clear to the customer.
  • Under Unfair Contract Terms Act, it must be reasonable/fair.
  • UCTA - term which excludes liability for death or personal injury caused due to negligence is invalid.
  • Hedley Bryne v Heller & Partner.
• Law of tort

  Type of civil wrong i.e. a breach of a legal duty or infringement of a legal right that gives rise to a claim for damages.

  • A legal duty must exist.
  • Examples = trespass, slander, libel, defamation, nuisance etc.
• Difference between tort and contract?

  • Usually in torts the parties have never met or agreed that they owe each other a legal duty
  • Can have both - claimant can choose appropriate remedy in event of a breach.
• Negligence


  Example of a tort

  • It is the breach of legal duty to take care, which results in damage to another.
• 3 elements of negligence


  An action for negligence will succeed if the claimant can prove:

  1. A duty of care was owed to them by the defendant, and
  2. The defendant breached that duty, and
  3. As a consequence of the breach, damage or loss was suffered.
• Duty of care

  There is a duty to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable harm to foreseeable victims.
• Breach of duty of care


  Burden of proof - the claimant must prove the defendant acted carelessly

  • Sometimes impossible to prove or too distressing to go through
  • Can be obvious there has been carelessness by the defendant, because there is no other explanation for how the injury or incident occurred. Known as "res ipsa luquitur" principle.
• Standard of care - what does "careless" mean? 


  Basic principle

  • Required standard of care that of a "reasonable person"
  • "Reasonable" the ordinary person on the street, not expected to be skilled in any particular trade of profession.

  The standard of care is higher where there is a greater risk of injury, or where the claimant is more vulnerable.

  Lack of training or expertise does not reduce the standard of care.