Damage, Damages, and Death Claims:
Damage in Negligence:
Without damage, there is no claim in negligence
Torts actionable per se and on proof of loss
Torts actionable se – without proof of damage (trespass)
Torts actionable on proof of loss (negligence; nuisance)
o “The common law takes no cognisance of negligence in the abstract. It concerns itself with
carelessness only where there is… damage.” (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 per Lord
Macmillan)
Compensatory Damages - The Question of Quantum:
“Where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for reparation
of damages you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has been
injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong
for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation”
Livingstone v The Rawyards Coal Company (1880) 5 App. Cas 25, 39 per Lord Blackburn
Types of Loss:
Physical Injury: most obvious case to claim negligence
Psychiatric Injury: conditions, such as PTSD/depression.
Damage to Property
Economic Loss
o Economic Loss that is the result of physical injury, psychiatric injury or damage to property
(‘Consequential Economic Loss’), such as a loss of wages
o Economic Loss that does not result from physical injury, psychiatric injury or damage to
property (‘Pure Economic Loss’), such as investments which cause financial loss
Distress
What amounts to Physical Injury?
Whether bodily capacity has been altered detrimentally determines whether physical injury has occurred.
Physical Harm:
Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758 (inhalation of silica particles damaged the lung tissue,
causing minute scars and reducing the efficiency of the lung tissue) – Yes, reduced ability to breathe.
Grieves v FT Everard & Sons Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 27; [2006] 4 All E.R. 1161 (pleural plaques) – No, as
pleural plaques did not alter the physiological functioning of lungs, so people had the same lung
capacity before and after the pleural plaques.
Dryden v Johnson Matthey Plc [2018] UKSC 18; [2018] 2 W.L.R. 1109 (platinum sensitisation) – Yes
(“[has] the claimants… bodily capacity… been impaired” para.[40]). Supreme Court ruled that the
increased sensitisation to platinum salt did amount to physical damage. Bodily capacity was impaired
Damage beyond Physical Injury
Damage to property
Physical damage
Damage in Negligence:
Without damage, there is no claim in negligence
Torts actionable per se and on proof of loss
Torts actionable se – without proof of damage (trespass)
Torts actionable on proof of loss (negligence; nuisance)
o “The common law takes no cognisance of negligence in the abstract. It concerns itself with
carelessness only where there is… damage.” (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 per Lord
Macmillan)
Compensatory Damages - The Question of Quantum:
“Where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for reparation
of damages you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has been
injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong
for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation”
Livingstone v The Rawyards Coal Company (1880) 5 App. Cas 25, 39 per Lord Blackburn
Types of Loss:
Physical Injury: most obvious case to claim negligence
Psychiatric Injury: conditions, such as PTSD/depression.
Damage to Property
Economic Loss
o Economic Loss that is the result of physical injury, psychiatric injury or damage to property
(‘Consequential Economic Loss’), such as a loss of wages
o Economic Loss that does not result from physical injury, psychiatric injury or damage to
property (‘Pure Economic Loss’), such as investments which cause financial loss
Distress
What amounts to Physical Injury?
Whether bodily capacity has been altered detrimentally determines whether physical injury has occurred.
Physical Harm:
Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758 (inhalation of silica particles damaged the lung tissue,
causing minute scars and reducing the efficiency of the lung tissue) – Yes, reduced ability to breathe.
Grieves v FT Everard & Sons Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 27; [2006] 4 All E.R. 1161 (pleural plaques) – No, as
pleural plaques did not alter the physiological functioning of lungs, so people had the same lung
capacity before and after the pleural plaques.
Dryden v Johnson Matthey Plc [2018] UKSC 18; [2018] 2 W.L.R. 1109 (platinum sensitisation) – Yes
(“[has] the claimants… bodily capacity… been impaired” para.[40]). Supreme Court ruled that the
increased sensitisation to platinum salt did amount to physical damage. Bodily capacity was impaired
Damage beyond Physical Injury
Damage to property
Physical damage
