As specified by Elliot (2003), there is a distinction when the financial loss is not the direct consequence of the damage to a property or personal injury.
In cases of pure economic loss the law of tort does not usually accept claims.
Furthermore "Social Security Act 1975 created a national insurance system which provides benefits for injuries arising out of and in the course of insurable employment".
Dias (1989) Based on the balance of probabilities although W owes a duty of care to M evidence suggests that M has contributory negligence since he did not pay attention to the warning notice.
Negligence simply refers to failure to use reasonable care.
In common law negligence is explained as the action taken that contradicts with what an ordinary reasonable member from a given community would act in that same community.In negligence law, a neighbor is that person who is directly and closely affected by one's act such that one is supposed to have him/her in contemplation to be affected when directing the mind to the omissions and acts in question.Standard of care must be proved by deciding whether the defendant in question owed the plaintiff a standard of care, the level of standard of care that the defendant owed the plaintiff and lastly, by determining whether another reasonable person in the same field like the defendant would do the same.Owens (2001) specifies the reason for this as the pure economics loss is usually dealt with under contract law and because it could lead to a "floodgates" situation which it is argued that this would give rise to thousands of claims for pure economics loss.It is also specified that unless particular circumstances apply, no duty of care is owed for pure economics loss.M has to prove that not enough reasonable precautions have been taken.Compensation for the injury is reduced on the percentage of contributory negligence.In this case in question, B (patient) was examined by A (doctor) since he had a chest problem.A had asked B all the relevant questions just like any other doctor in this field would have done.Caparro Industries plc v Dickman (1990) set-up three questions which have to be answered in order to establish whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant: Was the claimant reasonably foreseeable?Was there a relationship of sufficient proximity between the parties?