Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When someone (plaintiff) gets injured and its the fault of the company (defendent). The injury only resulted in her not being able to work for 2 months, pure economic loss of earnings of £1500. How much contractual damages can she claim back? Also, are there any similar cases I can use to cite from?

    Cheers
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by padawan93)
    When someone (plaintiff) gets injured and its the fault of the company (defendent). The injury only resulted in her not being able to work for 2 months, pure economic loss of earnings of £1500. How much contractual damages can she claim back? Also, are there any similar cases I can use to cite from?

    Cheers
    I'm assuming that there is some contract between plaintiff and company and that the breach of that contract caused her injuries? Otherwise there is no contractual claim at all, only a claim in tort.

    In tort, loss of earnings as a result of personal injury is not 'pure economic loss' at all, it's consequential loss.

    If the plaintiff is suing in contract then there is nothing special about 'pure economic loss', in fact most contractual damages claims are going to be for 'pure economic loss'. Just apply the rule in Hadley v Baxendale - was it in the reasonable contemplation of the parties that if the company breached the contract in such a way as to injure the plaintiff, she would lose wages?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, sorry, there was a contract in place. I'm not sure if there was reasonable contemplation; it took place at the defendants car park, the defendant accidentally crashed their car and it spilled toxic fumes out of the back which caused the plaintiff to develop lung problems, keeping her off work for 2 months. It was completely the defendants fault but i'm not sure if you could say that their actions were foreseeable?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by padawan93)
    Yeah, sorry, there was a contract in place. I'm not sure if there was reasonable contemplation; it took place at the defendants car park, the defendant accidentally crashed their car and it spilled toxic fumes out of the back which caused the plaintiff to develop lung problems, keeping her off work for 2 months. It was completely the defendants fault but i'm not sure if you could say that their actions were foreseeable?
    Not sure I understood the scenario.

    it took place at the defendants car park, the defendant accidentally crashed their car
    So the defendant owns a car park and the defendant crashed their own car in their own car park? That sounds pretty strange, but okay. Was the contract a licence to use the defendant's car park? If so how has that contract been breached by the defendant crashing their car?

    On the assumption that you find some breach of contract, the exact method that the personal injury occurred doesn't need to be foreseeable. Perhaps no-one would expect toxic fumes to cause lung problems as a result of a crash but it's pretty clear that some physical injury is the likely result of crashing and so it won't be too remote. That's the rule in tort but I can't see why it would be different in contract, better check your textbook.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Here's the full case, i just wasn't sure what the contractual damages would be in regards to personal injury.

    She buys all her cleaning equipment from Mopheads, a wholesale supplier of cleaning products and utensils. She buys in her supplies every month. One day she enters Mopheads’ barrier car park by taking a ticket from the dispenser. She is listening to the radio as she does this and fails to see a new sign displayed at the entrance of the car park which reads:

    “Owners park here entirely at their own risk. Mopheads accepts no responsibility for injury to persons using these premises howsoever caused”.
    Claire also fails to notice a clause printed on the reverse of the ticket which reads:

    “Mopheads accepts no responsibility for damage to property in respect of vehicles parked on the premises, howsoever caused”.
    Having purchased the equipment she needs, Claire returns to her car and puts the items in the back. She then walks over to the payment machine to pay for her parking.

    As she is walking back to her car vehicle she notices a large van belonging to Mopheads with its rear doors open pulling up in front of hers. Suddenly the Mopheads’ van seems to jerk forwards and smashes headlong into Claire’s car. The impact of the crash causes the contents of the Mopheads’ van to spill out a number of different chemicals which mix when they hit the floor. They immediately produce toxic fumes which causes Claire to faint.
    toxic fumes which causes Claire to faint.

    Claire’s car is damaged and requires £500 worth of work to remedy. There is damage to the merchandise she has just purchased worth £250. Claire is taken to hospital where it transpires that she has temporary damage to her lungs, rendering her unable to work for 2 months. Her estimated loss of income is £1,500.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Almost certainly the whole amount will be recoverable. If the breach of contract is an accident then it is foreseeable that the innocent party will suffer personal injury and so it falls within the first limb of H v B. It cannot matter that the exact way the complainant suffered injury was unusual - although as I said I don't know any contract case on this point - in tort you have Hughes v Lord Advocate and see no reason why the same logic wouldn't apply. In fact, thinking about it, I don't know a single contract case on damages where the damage was personal injury and I couldn't find any in Treitel etc - probably because everyone sues in tort.

    One other point on damages, remember that the complainant has a duty to mitigate, in this case by returning to work as soon as she is able, and by claiming sick pay / benefits if they are available!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    oh ok, thanks for all your help and the speedy responses, you've cleared it up now!
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.