228 Chapter 8The tort of negligence
Damages will not be awarded for trauma suffered immediately before death by a claimant
who is killed by the defendant’s breach of duty. It is also the case that the nervous shock
must be caused by witnessing a sudden horrific event and not by witnessing a gradual
process, such as death from a wasting disease.Pure economic loss
In Chapter 5 we saw that a claim for economic loss is often the basis of a claim for damages
for breach of contract. The law of tort is generally concerned with liability for injury to the
person and damage to property. However, damages may also be recoverable in respect of
economic loss which is a direct consequence of physical injury or damage to the claimant’s
own property. For example, if a claimant is injured and unable to work a claim for lost
earnings may be made. An example of a business successfully claiming for economic loss
can be seen in British CelanesevA H Hunt Ltd (1969). The defendants negligently caused
the claimant’s factory to suffer a loss of power by allowing foil strips to blow onto a power
line. This caused damage to the claimant’s machines. The Court of Appeal held that the
resulting economic loss of not being able to use the machines was fully recoverable. Spartan
Steel and Alloys LtdvMartin & Co (contractors) Ltd (1973)provides a contrast. Here the
defendant’s power shovel negligently cut a cable belonging to the utility company. This
caused the defendant’s factory to be without electricity for 14 hours. Damages could be
recovered for the reduction in value of metal which had to be removed from a furnace, and
for the profit which would have been made on that particular ‘melt’ of metal. However, the
Court of Appeal did not award damages for four other lost ‘melts’ which would have been
produced but for the power cut. This loss was economic loss which did not flow directly
from the claimant’s own physical loss and so no duty of care was owed in respect of it.
In WellervFoot and Mouth Research Institute (1966)a firm of auctioneers were not able
to claim damages in respect of lost profits caused by the defendants negligently allowing
foot and mouth disease to escape from their laboratory. The ensuing outbreak caused the
claimants to be prevented from holding auctions but the defendants owed them no duty in
respect of their lost profits. This principle is necessary to limit the number of persons who
might have a claim. If the auctioneers had been able to claim in respect of their economic
loss then a similar claim could have been made by a large number of other businesses, such
as pubs and cafés, which had also been caused economic loss. It may, however, be possible
for the claimant to succeed in an action for damages for pure economic loss if he can bring
himself within one of several exceptions to the general rule. These exceptions would include
liability for negligent misstatement, which is considered below on p. 237.as sufficiently proximate. Rather, the necessary proximity will exist if there was a close
enough relationship of love and affection to make it reasonably foreseeable that the
claimant would suffer nervous shock if they apprehended that the primary victim had been
or might be injured. Whether or not such closeness existed would require careful scrutiny
in every case. Second, is also necessary that the claimant prove closeness to the accident
or its aftermath in terms of both time and space. Third, the nervous shock must have been
suffered on account of seeing or hearing the accident or its immediate aftermath. Applying
these principles, the claims of those who saw the accident on television failed. Two
claimants who were inside the football ground failed in their claim because they were not
in a sufficiently proximate relationship to the victims of the disaster.