The Negligence Law: The Case Of The Jones Vs. Kaney Case
1050 Words5 Pages
Nonetheless, some professionals have acted negligently towards customers in the past. A special case that caused the Negligence law to develop was Jones v Kaney. This case caused immunity to be removed from expert witnesses across the United Kingdom. Expert witness is anyone “with knowledge of or experience in a particular field or discipline beyond that to be expected of a layman” according to (Pamplin and White, 2008); this includes computer professionals. Before looking into the Jones v Kaney case, it is worth reflecting at how expert witnesses were treated previously.
Prior to the Jones v Kaney case, expert witnesses enjoyed the immunity from suit just as witnesses of facts did. Witness of facts are not to be confused with expert witnesses; witness of facts provide testimony that is “not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” as stated by (Law.cornell.edu, 2014). They simply deliver a statement of observed facts and some opinion in their testimony during proceedings. The factual witnesses continue to have the immunity from suit today.
The case of “Stanton v Callaghan” confirms the existence of immunity from suit for expert witnesses in court cases involving negligence during “1998” as dictated by (Bailii.org, 1998). This case occurred prior to the Jones v Kaney case, which was argued for during 2011. In the Stanton v Callaghan case, the plaintiff, Mr Stanton, approached a structural engineer, Mr Callaghan, to prepare a report on the damaged property, stating that the work carried out previously, with the agreement of the insurers, was not appropriate because it feel apart, so that he could claim for a sum of money from the insurance company to carry out the total underpinning work for the property....
... middle of paper ...
...er for them as expert witnesses if need arises.
The Negligence Law has evolved to affect a computer professional’s immunity from suit significantly. A computer professional acting as an expert witness or a defend-ant in a court is no longer immune from suit, which seems to be a decision made in general public’s interest. A computer professional may need to take up a suitable professional indemnity cover to cover himself as expert witnesses, which is an im-plication of the immunity being stripped off. However, removal of immunity from suit for computer professionals does not provide a solution for cases regarding negli-gence that comprise of pure economic loss as opposed to physical injuries or dam-age to the property. This remains a problem. Removal of immunity from suit merely provides remedy for situations where there is a clear “breach of duty to take care.”