Pure Economic Loss

1939 Words8 Pages
1. Pure economic loss is loss that does not arise out of physical damage suffered by the claimant. Spartan Steel : If claims for economic loss were permitted for this particular hazard, there would be no end of claims, and it might be night impossible to check the claims. The risk of economic loss should be suffered by the whole community who suffer the losses rather than on one pair of shoulders. Contract law would be better for financial loss. Canadian National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co: 1. The insurance argument that the plaintiff is in a better position to predict economic loss consequent on an accident, and hence better able to obtain cheap insurance against the contingency. However this reduces incentives to tortfeasors to take care. It is also doubtful that either victim or tortfeasor would insure at reasonable costs in the insurance markets of the real world 2. Loss-spreading justification that it is better for the economic well-being of society to spread the risk among many parties rather than on one shoulder. However where losses are spread by relieving the tortfeasor of liability we can expect more accidents and more losses. Also some of the victims may sustain large losses not small ones 3. People who stand to suffer economic loss should allocate the risk within their contracts effectively with property owners Argument assumes that all persons organise affairs in accordance with laws of economic efficiency, assigning liability to the ‘least-cost risk avoider’ Not all parties to a transaction share an equality of bargaining power 2. Donoghue v Stevenson: Lord Reid Hedley Byrne: the difference between negligent acts and words: people often express definite opinions on social or informal occasions even when they see that others may be influenced by them; they do it without taking that care which they would take if asked
Open Document