From: billy@anon.com 
  
 "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
 news:12e19ktvvpdhtchksdh748k157d1v8i05r@4ax.com... 
 > On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 22:31:31 +0100, Jeff Layman  
 wrote: 
 > 
 >>On 03/08/2025 20:33, Mark Goodge wrote: 
 >>> I'm aware that, in some circumstances, giving bad advice can amount to 
 >>> professional negligence. But what if the person giving the advice is not, 
 in 
 >>> any sense, a professional in that field? Can they, too, be liable if 
 their 
 >>> advice causes demonstrable loss to the person taking, and acting on, 
 their 
 >>> advice? 
 >> 
 >>Would it not depend to a large extent on whether or not they are trying 
 >>to pass themselves off as a professional? Following the advice of 
 >>someone carrying an electricians toolkit to connect the brown wire to 
 >>the neutral connection, the blue wire to the live connection, and leave 
 >>the earth wire disconnected, would have a different connotation to 
 >>someone dressed as a multicoloured chicken giving the same advice. 
 > 
 > I'm thinking of someone who makes no claim to be a regulated professional, 
 > but nonetheless presents themself as a knowledgeable and experienced 
 > amateur. Like, for example, a lot of people here. If I gave bad legal 
 advice 
 > to someone, and it cost them money (eg, by losing a hopeless case that I 
 > wrongly advised them was easily winnable), would I have any liability? 
 > 
  
 It would presumably depend on whether a Duty of Care existed which as might 
 be expected is a from simple matter. Although a superficial reading 
 suggests you'd go free. Alough don't hold me to that. 
  
 Just a short quote 
  
 quote: 
  
 The first element of negligence is the legal duty of care. This concerns the 
 relationship 
 between the defendant and the claimant, which must be such that 
 there is an obligation upon the defendant to take proper care to avoid 
 causing 
 injury to the plaintiff in  all the circumstances of the case. There are two 
 ways in which a duty of care may be established: 
  
   1.. the defendant and claimant are within one of the recognised 
   2.. relationships where a duty of care is established by precedent; or 
   3.. outside these relationships, according to the principles developed by 
 case law. 
 The principles delineated in Caparo v Dickman specify a tripartite test: 
  
   1.. Was the harm reasonably foreseeable? 
   2.. Was there a requisite degree of proximity between the claimant and the 
   3.. defendant? 
   4.. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care; are there 
 precluding 
 public policy concerns? 
 There are a number of distinct and recognisable situations in which the 
 courts 
 recognise 
 the existence of a duty of care. Examples include 
  
   a.. one road-user to another 
   b.. employer to employee 
   c.. manufacturer to consumer 
   d.. doctor to patient 
   e.. solicitor to client 
   f.. teacher to student 
 [...] 
  
  The idea that a duty of care may be owed to protect against the economic 
 loss 
 of others has been seen as problematic,[50] as the bounds of such liability 
 are 
 potentially unforeseeable, and difficult to establish 
  
 [...] 
  
 : unquote 
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_in_English_law 
  
 On a superficial reading at least, there is no mention of payment for any 
 such advice. As was the assumption with the Influencer, who thereby 
 transgressed FCA rules. 
  
 And of course there is an everyday Duty of Care; in say warning unsighted 
 strangers of an oncoming vehicle. 
  
  
 bb 
  
 > 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)