Phillip Or Radio Station 2zw's Economic Loss Case
Issue: Did Phillip or Radio Station 2ZW owe Jane or Tom duties of care? Is this personal injury or purely economic loss case? Was there a breach of the duty of care? Did the breach cause any harm to Jane and Tom? Was the scope appropriate of the negligent person’s liability? Are there any defences available for Philip or 2ZW?
Relevant law: Elements of negligence action need to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities: In personal injury case, duty of care exists if harm is reasonably foreseeable and reasonable to impose duty on the defendant to take care; In purely economic loss case, there should also be a ‘special relationship of trust and reliance’ existed between the parties.
Breach of the duty of care arises when the defendant owes standard of care but failing to meet the standard when a reasonable person in this position has not done what he would have done.
Harm should be significant and recognized by the law. …show more content…
Moreover, it is not onerous and expensive to take precautions, so the burden is not high. One reasonable person should inform the risk associated and should try his best to gather all the relevant information to give the most decent advice. However, Philip had not caught up with the recent news and did not give any precautions to the listeners. Therefore, Philip fails to meet the standard and did breach the duty of care.
One reasonable defendant in 2ZW’s position will train employees to provide careful and reasonable comments and ask them to tell the listeners or even before each segment of the talk, play a voice notification to inform the potential risk. It is unclear that if 2ZW have had done these. Therefore, 2ZW might not breach the duty of
Relevant law: Elements of negligence action need to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities: In personal injury case, duty of care exists if harm is reasonably foreseeable and reasonable to impose duty on the defendant to take care; In purely economic loss case, there should also be a ‘special relationship of trust and reliance’ existed between the parties.
Breach of the duty of care arises when the defendant owes standard of care but failing to meet the standard when a reasonable person in this position has not done what he would have done.
Harm should be significant and recognized by the law. …show more content…
Moreover, it is not onerous and expensive to take precautions, so the burden is not high. One reasonable person should inform the risk associated and should try his best to gather all the relevant information to give the most decent advice. However, Philip had not caught up with the recent news and did not give any precautions to the listeners. Therefore, Philip fails to meet the standard and did breach the duty of care.
One reasonable defendant in 2ZW’s position will train employees to provide careful and reasonable comments and ask them to tell the listeners or even before each segment of the talk, play a voice notification to inform the potential risk. It is unclear that if 2ZW have had done these. Therefore, 2ZW might not breach the duty of