Therefore, we fall back to the basic principle for a claim in
tort of negligence, i.e., duty of care and foreseeability. The
position has to be brought in two stages. The first one is whether,
as between the defendant and plaintiff there is a sufficient relation
of proximity such that, in the reasonable contemplation on the
defendant, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause
damage to the latter in which case a prima-facie duty of care
arises. Secondly, if the first question is answered affirmative, it is
necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which
ought to negate or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the
class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a
breach may give rise. The necessary ingredient for duty of care
is characterized by law by one of proximity and that the situation
should be one in which the Court considers it fair, just and
reasonable that the law should impose a duty to the given case
upon one of the party for the benefit of the others. The next point
is whether pure economic loss independent of physical damage is
claimable.
44. In this case, the defendant vessel had come to Ranpur Bay
to discharge a cargo of LPG to the account of BPCL in the Captive
jetty. Bad weather caused her to drift when she was being
berthed, and she ran aground 1.5/1.6 kms from the jetty. The
plaintiff is carrying on business of manufacture of PVC resin at a
plant which is further inside from the Port. It will not be reasonable
or fair or just to impose upon the defendant duty of care to the
plaintiff because like the plaintiff there will be multitude persons
who would have been remotely affected not as a rule by way of
physical damage to them or their property but by putting them to
inconvenience and sometimes economic loss. If claims for such
loss were permitted there would be no end to claims. Some might
be genuine, some might be inflated or even false. In such cases,
it is also not rightly capable of proof or easily checked and in my
view this claim for economic loss for the plaintiff, independent of
physical damage is not payable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 255 OF 2011
IN
ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 20 OF 2006
Finolex Industries Ltd
Versus
M.V. KEW BRIDGE,
CORAM: K.R.SHRIRAM, J.
Pronounced on: 9th June
2014
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR823
Print Page
tort of negligence, i.e., duty of care and foreseeability. The
position has to be brought in two stages. The first one is whether,
as between the defendant and plaintiff there is a sufficient relation
of proximity such that, in the reasonable contemplation on the
defendant, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause
damage to the latter in which case a prima-facie duty of care
arises. Secondly, if the first question is answered affirmative, it is
necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which
ought to negate or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the
class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a
breach may give rise. The necessary ingredient for duty of care
is characterized by law by one of proximity and that the situation
should be one in which the Court considers it fair, just and
reasonable that the law should impose a duty to the given case
upon one of the party for the benefit of the others. The next point
is whether pure economic loss independent of physical damage is
claimable.
44. In this case, the defendant vessel had come to Ranpur Bay
to discharge a cargo of LPG to the account of BPCL in the Captive
jetty. Bad weather caused her to drift when she was being
berthed, and she ran aground 1.5/1.6 kms from the jetty. The
plaintiff is carrying on business of manufacture of PVC resin at a
plant which is further inside from the Port. It will not be reasonable
or fair or just to impose upon the defendant duty of care to the
plaintiff because like the plaintiff there will be multitude persons
who would have been remotely affected not as a rule by way of
physical damage to them or their property but by putting them to
inconvenience and sometimes economic loss. If claims for such
loss were permitted there would be no end to claims. Some might
be genuine, some might be inflated or even false. In such cases,
it is also not rightly capable of proof or easily checked and in my
view this claim for economic loss for the plaintiff, independent of
physical damage is not payable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 255 OF 2011
IN
ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 20 OF 2006
Finolex Industries Ltd
Versus
M.V. KEW BRIDGE,
CORAM: K.R.SHRIRAM, J.
Pronounced on: 9th June
2014
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR823
