These are what are called the "elements" of negligence. Most jurisdictions say that there are four elements to a negligence action: Some jurisdictions narrow the definition down to three elements:
For a duty of care to be owed by the defendant to a claimant there must be sufficient proximity in their relationship. Cases where the damage caused is pure economic loss are known as limited duty situations.
This means that a claimant may only recover for pure economic loss exceptionally where it is possible to show a sufficiently close relationship between the claimant and defendant. Definition The general rule is that a defendant does not owe any duty of care to a claimant not to cause pure economic loss.
Therefore, in general, if pure economic loss is the only damage suffered it is not recoverable. If a claimant suffers personal injury or damage to his property this may lead to economic losses, such as loss of income or cost of hiring a substitute, such losses are categorised as consequential economic loss.
If a claimant suffers no personal injury or damage Negligent infliction of economic loss and property then his losses are purely economic.
Therefore, pure economic loss is loss which is not consequential from personal injury or damage to property. Restricting liability The theory underlying limiting claims for pure economic loss is that these losses are potentially limitless.
Without the special rule for economic loss, the floodgates would be open for an indeterminate number of claimants making claims for limitless amounts. Damage to a third party's property Damage to a third party's property may result in pure economic loss. For example, if A borrows an item from B and this item is damaged due to the defendant's negligence.
B may make a claim for the damaged property. However, A may not make a claim for any pure economic losses incurred, such as having to hire a substitute item. The plaintiffs owned a factory where they manufacture stainless steel. The factory's electricity was supplied by a direct cable owned by a third party Midlands Electricity Board.
The defendants, were contractors, who carelessness carried out road works and damaged the cable supplying electricity to the factory. Therefore, the Electricity Board had to shut down the electricity supply, to mend the cable, this took fourteen and a half hours overnight.
The factory was usually working continuously, twenty four hours a day. When the power was shut off, there was metal being melt processed in a furnace. The melt process required a constant temperature and therefore needed an electricity supply.
If the plaintiff had left the mixture in the furnace without any power supply it could damage the machinery. Which losses could the plaintiff recover? This was the cost of physical damage to the plaintiff's property the melt and consequential economic loss the lost profit.
However, the plaintiff could not recover for the loss of profit during the whole period that the electricity was off. This was pure economic loss caused by damage to the property of a third party the damaged cable belonged to the Electricity Board.
I think the question of recovering economic loss is one of policy. Whenever the courts draw a line to mark out the bounds of 'duty' they do it as a matter of policy so as to limit the responsibility of the defendant Therefore, if a defendant negligently damages property belonging to a third party, which leads to A suffering pure economic loss, there is an insufficiently close relationship between the defendant and A, so no duty of care is owed and losses are not recoverable.
No physical damage Pure economic loss may arise where there has been no physical damage.
The foot and mouth disease virus was negligently released by the defendant. The plaintiff operated a cattle market, which had to close due to the foot and mouth outbreak. Therefore, the plaintiff lost revenue, through the market closure.
Could the plaintiff recover for the loss? The plaintiff could not recover the loss, as it was not caused by physical damage, it was pure economic loss and no duty of care was owed by the defendant.
Therefore, pure economic loss without physical damage is not recoverable. The plaintiffs were tenants in a block of flats. The flats had structural damage due to subsidence. The plaintiffs decided not to sue the builders, who they had a contract with, as the firm did not have many resources and instead made a claim against the defendant.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendant, the local council, had negligently approved the plans and or negligently failed to inspect the building works. Could the plaintiffs recover in tort? The House of Lords found that the plaintiffs could recover from the defendant, despite there being no contract between the parties, because the structural damage was material damage to property.
The decision in Anns v Merton London Borough Council is controversial as there was no contract and the traditional view is that property damage only applies to someone's existing property, in this case the original property was defective.(a) "Economic damages" means objectively verifiable monetary losses, including medical expenses, loss of earnings, burial costs, loss of use of property, cost of replacement or repair, cost of obtaining substitute domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of business or employment opportunities.
A claimant's pure economic loss resulting from a defendant's carelessness can only give rise to a claim in Negligence if a duty of care is proved.
For a duty of care to be owed by the defendant to a claimant there must be sufficient proximity in their relationship. Monroe County Judge Williamson's Opinion in the case of Campbell srmvision.com on the issue of the standard of review from a privately agreed upon arbitration of an uninsured (UM) motorist claim was recently summarized here.
Judge Williamson held that, in the absence of a formal arbitration agreement, the case should be considered as if the parties .
Negligent Infliction of Economic Loss and Interference with Trade and Business Laws Adv Torts Seeds, Wees and Unlawful Means: Negligent Infliction of Economic Loss and Interference with Trade and Business By Francesco Bonollo Perre v Apand Duty of Care In Perre v Appand the full court of the HCA found that a duty of care was owed my Apand.
7JCULR Liability in Negligence 75 duty of care exist^.^ The concern of this article is with one type of pure economic loss where the limits of liability have not been clearly drawn by case law, and where there is considerable uncertainty as to how to determine when a duty of care exists, justifying a .
02/28/12 - Kaiser Permanente, one of the largest integrated managed care consortiums in the U.S., consists of three separate entities: Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Permanente Medical Groups and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.
Each independent Permanente Medical Group operates as a separate for-profit partnership and does not .