Liability for Negligence!
1. The Duty!
PURE ECONOMIC LOSS !
Neighbour Test (Donoghue v Stevenson): Care must be taken to avoid acts
Salient Features Test (Perre v Apand): Neighbour test is not enough in cases of
which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who are
pure economic loss to establish a duty of care, which caused a need for further
persons I ought to reasonably have in contemplation as I take an action/omission.
tests to identify if there was a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. ‘SALIENT FEATURES’!
Manufacturers owe a duty to users of their products to take
reasonable care to protect users from injuries (to person or property) that are reasonably foreseeable. (Grant v Knitting Mills)
Manufacturers owe a duty to innocent bystanders that the use of their products don’t cause harm to innocent bystanders providing that the injury (to persons or property) is reasonably foreseeable.
Distributors owe a duty of care to their consumers that they sell, when the product is examinable and the retailer is in a position to give warning or advise on use. (McPherson v Eaton)
Service providers generally owe a duty to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable injury in providing their service, they may be liable to both the client and any innocent bystander that has been hurt.
(Safeway v Zaluzna). Property owners owe a duty to take reasonable care not to avoid foreseeable risk to injury to people on their premises, whether the hazard was created by them or not. However, when a there is the involvement of a third party, there can be exceptions.
Was it reasonably foreseeable that the negligent acts of the defendant could cause harm/injury to persons/property?
Please join StudyMode to read the full document