Tort law
Sam ple exam pr oblem cor r ection
Kevin is likely to want the SPTA to pay the extra £19,000 that were used to rectify
and complete his pool.
His claim, formulated in the tort of negligence, will encounter numerous obstacles,
namely:
1. Can a duty of care be established?
2. If yes, was this duty breached?
3. Then, did the breach cause the damage or loss?
4. Finally, are there any defenses that the SPTA can invoke?
The first issue is a gateway issue and must therefore be addressed at the outset.
Can a duty of care be established? More precisely, did the SPTA owe Kevin a duty of
care in regard to the information available on their website notably the names of the
swimming pool contractors? To answer this question, it is important to first
determine whether this situation falls into a defined, existing precedent or if an
analogy can be drawn. If not, it must then be considered if the law should,
incrementally and with regard to precedents, be expanded to accommodate for a
novel case (Caparo and Robin son ).
Kevin’s claim is one for pure economic loss, i.e a situation where financial loss stems
directly from the harm caused by the negligent act or omission. No physical or
proprietary harm was suffered (consequential economic loss). The claimant simply
relied on the information available on the SPTA’s website which was, as he will
argue, negligently made and which led to his £19,000 loss.
In Spartan Steel, the House of Lords established that, generally, no duty of care is
owed in respect to pure economic loss. The case of H edley B y rn e, however,
tempered this general exclusionary rule. Broadly speaking, it set down four -
overlapping - criteria that are required to find a duty of care for a negligent
statement:
1. A special relationship of trust or confidence.
2. Voluntarily assumed responsibility: express or implied.
3. Reliance.
4. Reliance must be reasonable given the circumstances.
To establish a duty of care under Hedley B y rn e , Kevin, must therefore satisfy these
four coinciding criteria.
In Hedley B y rn e, Lord Reid defined “a special relationship of trust or confidence”
as “a reasonable man, knowing that he was being trusted or that his skill and
Sam ple exam pr oblem cor r ection
Kevin is likely to want the SPTA to pay the extra £19,000 that were used to rectify
and complete his pool.
His claim, formulated in the tort of negligence, will encounter numerous obstacles,
namely:
1. Can a duty of care be established?
2. If yes, was this duty breached?
3. Then, did the breach cause the damage or loss?
4. Finally, are there any defenses that the SPTA can invoke?
The first issue is a gateway issue and must therefore be addressed at the outset.
Can a duty of care be established? More precisely, did the SPTA owe Kevin a duty of
care in regard to the information available on their website notably the names of the
swimming pool contractors? To answer this question, it is important to first
determine whether this situation falls into a defined, existing precedent or if an
analogy can be drawn. If not, it must then be considered if the law should,
incrementally and with regard to precedents, be expanded to accommodate for a
novel case (Caparo and Robin son ).
Kevin’s claim is one for pure economic loss, i.e a situation where financial loss stems
directly from the harm caused by the negligent act or omission. No physical or
proprietary harm was suffered (consequential economic loss). The claimant simply
relied on the information available on the SPTA’s website which was, as he will
argue, negligently made and which led to his £19,000 loss.
In Spartan Steel, the House of Lords established that, generally, no duty of care is
owed in respect to pure economic loss. The case of H edley B y rn e, however,
tempered this general exclusionary rule. Broadly speaking, it set down four -
overlapping - criteria that are required to find a duty of care for a negligent
statement:
1. A special relationship of trust or confidence.
2. Voluntarily assumed responsibility: express or implied.
3. Reliance.
4. Reliance must be reasonable given the circumstances.
To establish a duty of care under Hedley B y rn e , Kevin, must therefore satisfy these
four coinciding criteria.
In Hedley B y rn e, Lord Reid defined “a special relationship of trust or confidence”
as “a reasonable man, knowing that he was being trusted or that his skill and
