ABSTRACT
J Understand the criteria for establishing the existence of a duty of care in relation to nervous shock (psychiatric damage)
nomic loss
J Understand the criteria for imposing liability for economic loss caused by a negligent misstatement
J Understand the limited circumstances in which the law is prepared to impose liability for a failure to act
liability
We have already seen how the tort of negligence is based on the existence first of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant. The law has developed over time to include many instances where a duty of care exists. There are numerous straightforward relationships where we might naturally expect a duty of care to exist. These would include such relationships as those between fellow motorists, between doctor and patient, between employer and employee, between manufacturers of products and their consumers and, of course, there are many others. We have already seen examples in the case law of all of these. There are also certain situations that are less obvious that have had to be considered by the courts where the duty arises more from specific circumstances than because of the relationship between the parties. They have proved to be more controversial but in some of them the courts have held that a duty of care does in fact exist. They include the following four major examples.
