Liability of Good Designs Ltd to Printlot Ltd (IRAC Analysis)
Issue
Whether Good Designs Ltd is liable in negligence to Printlot Ltd for:
1. Damage to the printing press and premises
2. Loss of the pamphlet consignment
3. Loss of profits from subsequent business interruption
Rule
Negligence arises where the claimant proves:
A duty of care owed by the defendant
A breach of that duty
Causation (both factual and legal)
Damage not too remote
The duty of care principle was established in Donoghue v Stevenson, requiring
reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm.
Remoteness of damage is governed by The Wagon Mound (No 1), which limits liability to
reasonably foreseeable damage.
Employers are liable for employees’ torts committed in the course of employment under
Respondeat Superior.
Recovery for pure economic loss is generally restricted, as seen in Spartan Steel &
Alloys Ltd v Martin (1973).
Application
1. Duty of Care
Good Designs Ltd, as a contractor carrying out renovations, owed a duty of care to
occupants of the building, including Printlot Ltd. It is reasonably foreseeable that
careless handling of heavy equipment during renovation could cause damage to floors
below.
Thus, a duty of care clearly exists.
2. Breach of Duty
Jack, an employee of Good Designs Ltd, pushed a heavy safe into a room where the
floorboards had been removed. A reasonable contractor would have checked the
structural condition of the floor before moving such a heavy object.
This conduct falls below the standard of care expected and therefore constitutes a
breach of duty.
Additionally, the circumstances suggest the application of Res Ipsa Loquitur, since such
an accident would not ordinarily occur without negligence.
3. Causation
Applying the “but-for” test, the damage would not have occurred but for Jack’s negligent
act. The safe crashing through the floor directly caused the destruction of the printing
press and damage to the premises.
1
There is no intervening act breaking the chain of causation.
4. Vicarious Liability
Good Designs Ltd will be liable for Jack’s negligence under respondeat superior, since
he was acting within the scope of his employment when the incident occurred.
5. Remoteness of Damage
(a) Damage to printing press and premises
This type of physical damage is clearly foreseeable in renovation work involving heavy
equipment. Therefore, it is not too remote, and liability attaches.
(b) Loss of pamphlet consignment
The destruction of the pamphlets is a direct consequence of the physical damage. Such
losses are considered consequential economic losses and are recoverable.
(c) Loss of profits from future orders
The loss of profits over subsequent weeks is more problematic. Following Spartan Steel,
courts distinguish between:
Losses directly linked to damaged property (recoverable), and
Pure economic loss arising from business interruption (generally not
recoverable).
The inability to fulfil future orders likely falls into the category of pure economic loss, as
it extends beyond the immediate physical damage.
Thus, recovery for these extended losses is likely to be denied.
6. Defences
There is no evidence of:
Contributory negligence by Printlot Ltd
Assumption of risk
Any intervening act
Therefore, no viable defence is available to Good Designs Ltd.
Conclusion
Good Designs Ltd will be liable in negligence to Printlot Ltd for:
Damage to the printing press
Damage to the premises
Loss of the pamphlet consignment
However, the company is unlikely to be liable for loss of profits from future business, as
this constitutes pure economic loss, which is generally unrecoverable under the
principles established in Spartan Steel.