Tags: Ucla EssaysCreative Writing Summer SchoolProblem Solving Activities Ks2Edward Scissorhands Essay JimSolving Business Problems With TechnologyLord Mayor'S Creative Writing Awards 2015
Owens (2001) specifies the reason for this as the pure economics loss is usually dealt with under contract law and because it could lead to a "floodgates" situation which it is argued that this would give rise to thousands of claims for pure economics loss.It is also specified that unless particular circumstances apply, no duty of care is owed for pure economics loss.
In negligence law, a neighbor is that person who is directly and closely affected by one's act such that one is supposed to have him/her in contemplation to be affected when directing the mind to the omissions and acts in question.
Standard of care must be proved by deciding whether the defendant in question owed the plaintiff a standard of care, the level of standard of care that the defendant owed the plaintiff and lastly, by determining whether another reasonable person in the same field like the defendant would do the same.
It's doping something that a prudent person wouldn't do.
It is the legal cause of damage if it directly, naturally and continuously contributes in causing that damage.
However, by looking at the case that set the precedent, Spartan Steel v Martin (1973), in which was held that no duty of care was owed for the loss of profit, J can argue that some data or job they were doing at the moment the power supplied was cut off was lost or ruined. Conclusion "Due warning may in appropriate circumstances discharge the occupier's duty of care" (Deakin, 2003) Thus, W can argue that they put up a warning notice as a precaution.
Furthermore, in Rae Geoffrey v Mars Ltd (1990) it was held that it is considered contributory negligence of the claimant when he did not pay enough attention or care and injured himself.There are three elements in the tort of negligence; duty of care, breach of the duty and damages.Duty of care means that any single person must always take reasonable care so that he can avoid omissions and acts that he can foresee reasonably as likely to result to injury to his neighbor.Breaching of the standard of care must be proved by checking how likely the injury was and how it can be regarded, injury gravity (whether the plaintiff at all engaged in a dangerous activity) and efforts that may be required in order to remove injury risk (whether the defendant failed to act reasonably).Damages caused by the defendant must have resulted through the breach of duty of care and that this was not remote.Caparro Industries plc v Dickman (1990) set-up three questions which have to be answered in order to establish whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant: Was the claimant reasonably foreseeable?Was there a relationship of sufficient proximity between the parties?Furthermore "Social Security Act 1975 created a national insurance system which provides benefits for injuries arising out of and in the course of insurable employment".Dias (1989) Based on the balance of probabilities although W owes a duty of care to M evidence suggests that M has contributory negligence since he did not pay attention to the warning notice.As specified by Elliot (2003), there is a distinction when the financial loss is not the direct consequence of the damage to a property or personal injury.In cases of pure economic loss the law of tort does not usually accept claims.