Tort of Negligence - Coursework Example

the case of Taha, it has been recognised that the duty of care was breached by Rob, who is accused of working is a distracted manner which resulted him accidently pouring hot soup over the face and body of Taha. According to the fundamental principle of ‘duty of care’, the term tends to refer to the circumstance(s) and/or relationships which are considered to be recognised as giving legal duty to take effective care. An infringement of such law can result in the defendant being accountable to pay the damages of the party or the injured individual as a result of breaching ‘duty of care.

’ In relation to the fundamental concept of ‘duty of care’, the parties or individual may be exposed to claim for violation of a duty of care with the purpose of preventing various types of economic loss. The reality of a duty of care is often makes an individual liable if the individual claims for loss of property along with facing a significant loss of financial assets. According to the basic principle of English Law, pure economic can be referred underneath the negligence if an individual or party experiences a large amount of financial loss due to the misguidance of another party (Kinder, 2012; Harpwood, 2009).

With reference to the interpretation, it has been widely accepted that economic loss or fatal financial collapses faced by a party significantly refers to financial detriment, which can be projected on a balance sheet even if it is it is not physically justified. For instance, the case of Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd can be taken into consideration where the claim of Hedley Byrne & Co. has been considered under the legislation due to the negligence of recuperating economic loss by Heller & Partners Ltd (Waddell & Rothstein, 2011).

With reference to the case scenario of Mike, it is duly considered that the court can establish relevant claim against Pitcher & Co due to the fact that one of its employees i.e. Rupert was involved in recommending