NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT

Negligent Misstatement by a Professional Person



Negligent Misstatement by a Professional Person

Introduction

The essay is based on the evaluation of a negligent misstatement in the tort of negligence by a professional person causing an economic loss to someone who relied on it. The essay states to what extent such a trained person can exclude their liability, with reference to case law and statute. This essay will address the tort law of negligent misrepresentation in detail, highlighting its key provisions; and also discussing the liabilities on an individual if he commits the misrepresentation. We will also assess within the essay, the possibility of exclusion from such liabilities based on certain, defined conditions.

Discussion

The concept of negligent misstatement relates to the idea that someone has relied on a statement from another, which turns out to lack duty of care and has caused harm. In an example, someone wants to buy a house and they get a survey which says the house is in good shape. That person buys the house on this information and this house then falls down. Engaging in a professional negligence of this kind involves a Professional Liability, i.e. the obligation to compensate damages through the injury to the victim. In more severe cases, there may be criminal liability, as the act constituting a crime of recklessness. Many businesses are started with the signing of a contract. Unfortunately, many times the contract is not fulfilled. It is important to know what to do in these cases. There are many ways to breach a contract, and different ways to return it.

Let us first discuss the definition of “damage” that is the foremost consequence of a negligent misrepresentation. The traditional approach, simply put, is that the damage which forms the 'gist of the negligence action' is the physical injury suffered by a plaintiff. Once it has been decided that the defendant has breached the required duty of care, the courts focus on determining whether there is a causative link between the breach of duty and the physical injury suffered, the traditional test being the 'but-for' test. The traditional effect has been that any physical injury, 'more likely than not' caused by the defendant's breach, will be recoverable. But what if the physical injury suffered by a plaintiff is not, on the balance of probabilities, likely to have been accused by the defendant's breach can be reformulate the damage suffered, not as the physical injury, but rather as the 'lost chance' of avoiding the physical injury? Dr Stapleton argues in 'The Gist of Negligence” that the damage suffered would still have to be 'more likely than not' caused by the defendant's breach. The gist of the negligence action becomes the 'lost chance.' When examining such an argument, an important consideration has to be borne in mind. It is in fact possible to distinguish between two types of chances: 'statistical' and 'personal.' A statistical chance can only be an assessment, based on data collected from previous unconnected outcomes, giving a probability of that outcome ...