Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:16

From: Adam Kramer

Subject: Good news/bad news

RS said:

If the misstatement results in physical harm he doesn't have to rely upon any assumption of responsibility.

I think this is wrong. Whatever the harm caused by the misstatement, there must be an assumption of responsibility otherwise there can be no duty. This is because the loss resulting from misstatement is indirect, i.e. the victim's reliance upon the statement is ordinarily his or her own choice and responsibility and, without an assumption of responsibility or a contract, he has only himself to blame. This may be treated as causation if you like.

I think you can get this from Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd (The Nicholas H) [1996] 1 AC 211, Philcox v Civil Aviation Authority (The Times, 8 June 1995 and Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 255. Causing harm by careless driving does not, of course, involve a misstatement (or blameworthy reliance by the victim).

Adam Kramer

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>