Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 21:
injury to their body, a free person] could claim damages for medical expenses and loss of earnings, [they] could not claim for other non-patrimonial types of harm because of the principle that a freeman’s body is of inestimable value'.<ref>John Blackie ‘Unity in diversity: the History of Personality Rights in Scots Law’ in Niall R. Whitty and Reinhard Zimmermann, ''Rights of Personality in Scots Law: A Comparative Perspective'' (Dundee University Press, 2009), at 85</ref> This changed in 1795 with the (unreported) case of ''Gardner v Ferguson'', which 'is generally regarded as the first case in the modern Scots law of negligence'.<ref>Eltjo J. H. Schräge, ''Negligence'', (Duncker and Humblot, 2001), at 8</ref> Since that time, it has been recognised in Scotland that one's physical - and by extension one's mental - health might be 'damnified' for the purposes of an ''Aquilian'' action, hence intentional, reckless or negligent invasion of the property, person or psychiatric wellbeing of another will, in principle, generate liability for reparation in delict.
Economic losses which derive from physical or psychiatric damage will, in principle, be recoverable as 'derivative economic loss'. Pure economic interests separated from one's property, person and mental wellbeing are, in principle, protected patrimonial interests and so ''ex facie'' causing another pure economic loss by way of one's wrongful conduct generates a right of reparation in the pursuer<ref>Kenway v Orcantic 1980 SLT 46</ref>. In practice, claims for 'pure economic loss' - i.e., loss which is not connected to damage done to one's person, property or mental health - are limited with reference to the rules pertaining to the duty of care and on remoteness of damages: ‘The grand rule on the subject of damages is, that none can be claimed except such as naturally and directly arise out of the wrong done; and such, therefore, as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the view of the wrongdoer.’<ref>''Allan v Barclay'' (1864) 2 M 873, ''per'' Lord Kinloch</ref> Unless a pursuer in such a case can demonstrate that the defender intended to cause them pure economic loss, or was reckless to that end, they must show that a duty of care was owed towards them and that the loss was directly caused by the breach of this duty.
===Non-patrimonial interests===
| |||