untitled

Negligent misstatement 237

unreasonably failing to get medical treatment, damages would be only in respect of the
moderate injuries which should have been suffered. The defendant should have mitigated
the loss by seeking medical treatment.

Volenti non fit injuria(to one who volunteers no harm is done)

It is a complete defence to show that the injured person voluntarily assumed the risk which
caused the injury. The defence is known by its Latin name, volenti non fit injuria. It often
defeats employees who are injured as a result of not following safety procedures. The
following case provides an example.

Volenti non fit injuriawill not apply if the claimant was injured while reasonably trying to
carry out a rescue. For example, in Haynes vHarwood (1935), a policeman was injured
when he tried to save some children from a runaway horse. The policeman could claim for
his injuries, even though they were caused by his decision to try to save the children.

Exclusion of liability for negligence

In Chapter 3 the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 was examined. It was seen that s. 2(1) of
the Act provides that no contract term or notice can exclude or restrict liability for death or
personal injury resulting from negligence. It was also seen that s. 2(2) provides that liability
for loss or damage other than death or personal injury can be excluded, but only to the
extent that this is reasonable.

Negligent misstatement

Negligent misstatement is not a tort in its own right. It is a branch of the tort of negligence.
Liability for negligent misstatement was first considered by the House of Lords in the
following case.

ICI Ltd vShatwell (1965) (House of Lords)

Experienced shot firers were badly injured when they tested detonators without taking the

proper safety precautions. They sued their employer, who did not know that the safety

precautions had not been adopted.

HeldThe employer had a complete defence. The injured workers had voluntarily assumed

the risk which injured them.

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd vHeller and Partners Ltd (1963) (House of Lords)

The defendants were merchant bankers. A certain company, E Ltd, banked with the defend-

ants. The claimants were considering giving credit to E Ltd. The claimants asked their own

bank to find out whether E Ltd was a good credit risk. The claimants’ bank therefore asked

the defendants whether E Ltd were a good credit risk. The request was made in confidence.

The defendants replied that E Ltd were creditworthy. The letter which said this was headed:

‘For your private use and without responsibility on the part of the bank or its officials.’ The

t