Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:57

From: Robert Stevens

Subject: Good news/bad news

Assuming he is not daft he knows, as we do, that there is no guarantee that it is accurate. What he relies upon is that it has been made with reasonable care and skill. See Denning in Esso. It is the assumption of responsibility as to the care which has been taken which generates the right, as it would have done in Hedley Byrne absent the disclaimer. If there had been no disclaimer, there would have been no right in Hedley Byrne that the statement was accurate. If the bank had taken all reasonable care, there would be no liability.

A more interesting question is what the law should be where the defendant does go further and guarantees a statement’s accuracy. If the claimant suffers loss relying upon it does he have a claim if the defendant has taken all care and skill? I suppose the orthodox answer on the state of the current law is no.

R

"BEEVER A.D." writes:

Robert wrote:

A statement of opinion of the kind relied upon by the lucky/unlucky guy contains, at least, two statements of fact:

(i) The hospital has SOME basis for this prognosis;

and

(ii) This prognosis has been made with reasonable care and skill.

  

Certainly, it is right that there is this assumption of responsibility.

This is surely right. But how does this generate any right in the patient to rely on the prognosis being accurate?

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