Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Week 6 The Law of Torts Negligence Negligent Misrepresentation.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Week 6 The Law of Torts Negligence Negligent Misrepresentation."— Presentation transcript:

1 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Week 6 The Law of Torts Negligence Negligent Misrepresentation

2 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Negligent Misrepresentation  Most often results in purely financial loss  Recovery of “pure economic loss” was denied by the courts for many years as:  No duty of care  Damage too remote  Donoghue v Stevenson was confined to physical damage  Economic effects may be more extensive than physical effects

3 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Negligent Misrepresentation (cont.)  Now allowed, but very narrow  Difficult to Develop tests to avoid too onerous a duty  Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964)  A duty of care can be owed where a careless statement causes economic loss  To prevent too wide a duty being owed, it only applied where there was a “special relationship”

4 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Negligent Misrepresentation (cont.)  Special relationship where  the advisor had special knowledge, skill or ability  There was an assumption of responsibility by the advisor; and  Their was reliance on the advice by the person being advised  Effectively limited to professional advisors

5 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Negligent Misrepresentation (cont.)  Special relationship test not followed in Australia (MLC v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556 at 723)  Overruled by Privy Council  Reinstated by High Court in Shaddock & Assoc. v Parramatta City Council (1981) 150 CLR 225

6 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Negligent Misrepresentation (cont.)  “Whenever a person gives information or advice to another upon a serious matter in circumstances where a person realises, or ought to realise, that he is being trusted to give the best of his information or advice as a basis for action on the part of the other party and it is reasonable in the circumstances for the other party to act on the information or advice, the speaker comes under a duty to exercise reasonable care in the provision of the information or advice he chooses to give” per Barwick CJ in MLC v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556 at 723

7 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Negligent Misrepresentation (cont.)  Shaddock v Parramatta City Council (P p405)  Was advice given in respect of a serious business matter  Were the circumstances such that the advisor should have realised that he was being trusted to give correct advice  In the circumstances, was it reasonable for the person being advised to have relied on the advice

8 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Negligent Misrepresentation (cont.)  San Sebastian v Minister Administering the Environment (P p 405)  “Element of reliance” is the “prominent” factor  “special skill and knowledge” not a factor  No need for an antecedent request for information

9 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Negligent Misrepresentation (cont.)  Duty can be owed where there is no contract  Esso v Mardon (S&OR p44)

10 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Negligent Misrepresentation (cont.)  Advice involving third parties  Lowe Lipman Figdoe & Franck v AGC (S&OR p47)  Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 241 (P p406)  Emphasised proximity between advisor and person receiving advice

11 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Negligent Misrepresentation (cont.) Important factors:  Whether plaintiff requested the advice  Whether defendant assumed responsibility for the risk being taken by the plaintiff  Where no request and no assumption of responsibility:  Whether defendant was aware that the plaintiff could be injured by the defendant’s advice  The degree of the plaintiff’s vulnerability  The defendant’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s vulnerability  Whether the defendant intended the plaintiff to rely on the advice

12 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) The Law of Torts Negligence Vicarious Liability

13 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Vicarious Liability  Definition The law holds a person liable for the wrongs of another even though the person has personally done no wrong  Examples  Employer\Employee

14 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Vicarious Liability (cont.)  Rationale  Economic The employer is usually insured  Safety Provides an incentive for employers to choose staff carefully and provide training  Policy Employers profit from their enterprise and therefore should be responsible for any loss it causes

15 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Vicarious Liability (cont.)  Indemnities  A contract can contain a clause requiring the employee to indemnify the employer  Some jurisdictions have abolished this right (e.g. s27C Wrongs Act (SA))  Employee is usually covered by employer’s insurance and insurer cannot recover against him (s66 Insurance Contracts Act)

16 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Vicarious Liability (cont.)  Requirements  Commission of a tort  Not contract or other legal liabilities  By an employee  A Principal is not liable for acts of an Independent Contractor  Acting in the course of his employment  What was the employee employed to do. Employer will be liable for acts in that area or incidental to it or if the employer otherwise authorised the wrongful act.

17 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Vicarious Liability (cont.) Who is an Independent Contractor?  Control test  Does the employer have the right to exercise control over what the employee does and how he does it?  Employer need only have power to control the employee’s work to the extent to which there is scope for such control

18 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Vicarious Liability (cont.)  Control test (cont.)  Factors  Can the employer tell the employee what to do, how to do it, when to do it etc.?  Does the employer have the power of dismissal  Does the employer provide equipment  Does the employer pay holiday pay, sick leave, workers compensation?

19 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Vicarious Liability (cont.)  Control test (cont.)  Integration test How closely has the employee been integrated into the employer’s business

20 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Vicarious Liability (cont.)  Control test (cont.)  Multi-factor test A worker is likely to be an independent contractor and not an employee if he:  Owns and maintains his own equipment  Is paid by results  Takes the chance of profit\loss  Has the right to delegate work  Has the right to work for others  Is not entitle to sick pay, workers compensation, sick leave or superannuation  Does not have PAYE tax installments deducted

21 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Vicarious Liability (cont.)  Acting in the course of his employment  Wide meaning  Employer is liable even when the employee does something that is not part of his job  Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509 (P p417)  Employer is liable even when the employee commits an intentional or illegal act  Poland v John Parr & Sons [1927] 1 KB 236 (P p418)  Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co [1912] AC 716 (P p417)

22 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) The Law of Torts Negligence Reforms

23 Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Reforms  Why is there an “insurance crisis”?  What are the alleged causes?  What are the proposals for reform?


Download ppt "Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Week 6 The Law of Torts Negligence Negligent Misrepresentation."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google