Negligence: Economic Loss, Negligent Mis-statement and Psyciatric Injury

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992]

Area of law: Relatives of the victims of hillsborough sued for psychiatric harm. All the claims failed

Principle: Secondary victims must prove love and affection, proximity to accident or aftermath and see with own senses

Chaudry v Prabhakar [1989]

Area of Law: Negligent advice given by a friend that a car had not been in an accident. Court of appeal said it was a negligent mis-statement.

Principle: Even a statement given by a friend may lead to liability for negligent mis-statement if there is reliance.

Goodwill v BPAS [1996]

Area of Law: A negligent mis-statement made to one person that they did not need to use contracepetion but relied on by a third party who became pregnant; was not negligent mis-statement.

Principle: Claimant needs to show that the defendant assumed responsibility and knew the advice would be acted on without an independent check

Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964]

Area of law: a negligent statement which is relied on and causes economic loss can create liability

Principle: Claimaint needs to show that the defendant assumed responsibility and knew the advice would be acted on without an independent check.

Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990]

Area of Law: the walls of a house built on a negligently checked concrete raft began to crack and house fell in value.

Principle: The cost of fixing this was pure economic loss and could not be claimed in tort. Anns overruled

Smith v Bush

Area of law: a negligent survey report given to the building society and shown to the mortgagor, contained an exclusion clause. Surveyor liable as owed a duty to mortgagor.

Principle: Duty can be owed by third party. The exclusion clause was unreasonable and invalid.

Spartan Steel v Martin [1973]

Area of law: A claim for economic loss when the electricity to a steel mill was cut.

Principle: A claim could be made for consequential economic loss but not for pure economic loss

Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2002]

Area of Law: a claim for psychiatric harm arising from the death of a baby. Mother present during events over 36 hours.

Principle: Everything which happened over that period was treated as one ‘event’ because the claimant was there and it counted as a sudden shock.