Economic Loss and Psychiatric Harm Flashcards
(21 cards)
What is the outcome of Spartan Steel v Martin & Co [1972] regarding economic loss?
A consequential economic loss is always recoverable, but pure economic loss is not.
This case established important principles regarding the recoverability of economic losses in tort law.
In Cattle v Stockton Waterworks [1875], what caused the flooding?
A tunnel flooded.
This case involved issues of liability for damages caused by flooding.
What was the key issue in Weller v Foot & Mouth Institute [1965]?
Virus escaped causing cattle restrictions.
This case highlighted the consequences of negligence leading to economic losses in agricultural contexts.
What concept did Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] HL introduce?
Negligent misstatement.
This landmark case established the principle that a party can be liable for providing negligent advice.
What indicates a special relationship in Lennon v MPC [2004]?
D’s skill/expertise shows a special relationship.
This case involved a police clerical officer giving incorrect advice.
What did Chaudhry v Prabhaker [1988] demonstrate regarding responsibility?
D’s voluntary assumption of responsibility shows a special relationship.
This case involved a friend advising on a second-hand car purchase.
What was the reliance issue in Patchett v Swimming Pool & ATA [2009]?
Customer relied on company website.
This case raised questions about the liability of businesses for misleading information on their websites.
What does Caparo v Dickman [1990] state about knowing the user of a statement?
D knowing the user of his statement shows a special relationship.
This case is pivotal in establishing the duty of care in negligence law.
What was the outcome of White v Jones [1995] regarding wills?
Solicitor D failed to update client’s will.
This case involved a breach of duty by a solicitor affecting the interests of beneficiaries.
What was the significance of Goodwill v BPAS [1996]?
Mistress became pregnant post-vasectomy.
This case dealt with issues of liability and medical negligence.
What does Smith v Eric Bush [1990] HL illustrate about reliance?
Reasonable reliance shows special relationship.
This case involved a survey report and the consequent liabilities associated with its accuracy.
What is the legal implication of Reilly v Merseyside RHA [1995] regarding psychological harm?
Psych harm requires a medical condition.
This case clarified the requirements for claiming damages for psychological injuries.
Define primary victims as established in McFarlane v EE Caledonia [1994].
Primary victims are those directly involved in the incident and who fear for their own safety.
This case involved the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster and its aftermath.
What triggered the return of ME in Page v Smith [1996]?
Minor RTA.
This case involved the relationship between physical injury and psychological harm.
What was significant about White v Chief Con of Sth Yorks [1998] HL?
Rescuers who suffer psychiatric harm can be primary victims.
This case involved police officers suffering PTSD after the Hillsborough disaster.
What did Chadwick v BRB [1967] involve?
C helped out for 12 hours at UK’s worst rail crash.
This case raised questions about liability for rescuers and their psychological injuries.
What did Alcock v Chief Con of Sth Yorks [1991] HL create for secondary victims?
Created a 3-stage test for secondary victims.
This case is significant in establishing criteria for claims of secondary victims in negligence cases.
What proximity requirement is there for secondary victims as established in Bourhill v Young [1943]?
As a secondary victim, C must have proximity of relationship with the primary victim.
This case involved a witness to an accident and the psychological impact it had on them.
What did McLoughlin v O’Brian [1981] HL establish regarding proximity?
As a secondary victim, C must have proximity in time and space with the primary victim.
This case involved a mother witnessing the aftermath of an accident involving her family.
What was the outcome of Galli-Atkinson v Seghal [2003]?
C saw daughter at scene of RTA.
This case further examined the requirements for secondary victims in negligence claims.
In Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS [2024] HL, what is the liability condition for secondary victims?
Liability for a secondary V must arise from an ‘accident’.
This case addressed the nature of the event leading to claims for secondary victims.
