Contributory negligence involving overseas European banks in property valuation negligence cases in the UK

This paper examines the phenomenon of cross-border property lending and examines a number of issues regarding lending procedures and decision making processes in the context of the relationship between lender and professional advisor. It commences by placing these procedures and processes in the context of the development of cross border European property investment and finance. The UK has been a popular destination for overseas investors and lenders over the last decade and is therefore used as a case study to examine the additional institutional risk that overseas lenders may face when operating outside of their own country and obtaining advice from home professionals. The UK market was the subject of a boom period during the late 1980s, followed by a recession in the early 1990s. The losses triggered a number of professional negligence actions by lenders against valuers. These include a number of overseas lenders mainly from Europe and these cases have been examined for any particular features which, coupled with other data gained from overseas lenders as part of an interview survey, could be used to isolate any significant problems for European lenders in overseas markets. The research identified a lack of clarity in roles and relationships between lender and advisor, difficulties in communications both internally and between overseas branches and headquarters and failures in provision and interpretation of advice. The paper concludes by identifying the issues which may need to be addressed generally by lenders and their advisors, when the lenders are operating in overseas markets.

The vulnerable subject of negligence law

The approach taken by English courts to the duty of care question in negligence has been subject to harsh criticism in recent years. This article examines this fundamental issue in tort law, drawing upon Canadian and Australian jurisprudence by way of comparison. From this analysis, the concept of vulnerability is developed as a productive means of understanding the duty of care. Vulnerability is of increasing interest in legal and political theory and it is of particular relevance to the law of negligence. In addition to aiding doctrinal coherence, vulnerability – with its focus on relationships and care – has the potential to broaden the way in which the subject of tort law is conceived because it challenges dominant assumptions about autonomy as being prior to the relationships on which it is dependent.

Jones -v- Bartlett: landlords` liability to tenants and members of their household in negligence

According to the latest available statistics, in 1997-98, of the total of seven million Australian households, two million were renting their dwelling from a State housing authority or private landlords.Therefore, the decision on the scope of landlords' liability to tenants, members of their households, and guests in the right of the tenant handed down by the High Court of Australia in November 2000 was not only of legal, but also of social and economic significance. This note will discuss the Jones v Bartlett case in the context of the traditional common law approach to landlords' liability and the ground-breaking, if flawed, case of Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris.

Quo iure? Defendants' liability to rescuers in the tort of negligence

The year 2001 marks the 80th anniversary of Cardozo J's judgment in Wagner v International Railway Co 232 NY 176 (1921). This article examines theoretical and procedural problems associated with the concept of duty of care as a foundation for the defendant's liability in negligence to altruistic rescuers, and suggests that Cardozo J's judgment did not establish the principle that defendants owe rescuers a duty of care in negligence. It is argued that subsequent judgments failed to provide the duty of care owed to rescuers under tortious negligence with proper jurisprudential foundations. Conceptual difficulties inherent in a jurisprudential principle that would provide physically injured rescuers with a legal right to a duty of care from the defendant under the tort of negligence were compounded once compensation for negligently occasioned pure emotional distress became available. This article analyses various theories of recovery for pure psychiatric injury and the classification of rescuers into primary and secondary victims. It proposes a solution in the form of a separate cause of action on the case for liability to injured rescuers, partly based on the principle of necessity that governs the Roman action for negotiorum gestio. Cases from the United States, England and Australia are used to illustrate the similarities and differences in the development of and approaches to, the law of rescue.

Unsafe leased residential premises: a landlord's liability in negligence to injured occupants

This article examines the law relating to the liability of landlords in negligence for unsafe residential premises, focusing in particular on the recent High Court decisions in Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris and Jones v Bartlett. The author concludes that the High Court in Jones v Bartlett has placed sensible limitations on landlords' liability, by limiting liability to defects in the premises that were known or ought to have been revealed on a reasonable inspection by the landlord. The author points out that there are compelling policy considerations supporting the court's conclusion in that case that the landlord should not be required to arrange for the premises to be inspected by expert tradespeople.

Negligence and the wrongdoing plaintiff: a corrective justice analysis

 The thesis demonstrates that the only legitimate basis for denying a claim in negligence arising out of an unlawful act by the plaintiff is the need to preserve the coherence of the legal system.

Varying Injurer Costs of Care, Negligence, and Self-Selection

Standard economic models of negligence set a single standard of care to which all injurers must conform. When injurers differ in their costs of care, this leads to distortions in individual care choices. This paper derives the characteristics of a negligence rule that induces optimal care by all injurers by means of self-selection. The principal features of the rule are (1) the due standard is set at the optimal care of the lowest cost injurer, and (2) liability increases gradually rather than abruptly as care falls below this standard. The results are consistent with the gradation in liability under certain causation rules and under comparative negligence.

On Negligence Rules and Self-Selection

Economic models of negligence ordinarily involve a single standard of care that all injurers must meet to avoid liability. When injurers differ in their costs of care, however, this leads to distortions in their care choices. This paper derives the characteristics of a generalized negligence rule that induces injurers to self-select their optimal care levels. The principal features of the rule are (1) the due standard of care is maximal, and (2) liability increases gradually as injurers depart further from this standard. The results are broadly consistent with the gradation in liability under certain causation rules and under comparative negligence.

Principles of the law of negligence /

Includes bibliographical references and index.