Abstract:
If A gives incorrect advice to B, will the presence of independent subsequent advice to B mean that A does not owe B a duty of care? This article will seek to answer that question and the broader questions arising from a negligence claim by B in these circumstances. Drawing on case law from New Zealand and England it will show that the presence of independent subsequent advice should not necessarily negate a duty of care. Instead, A’s knowledge that B will receive such advice may negate a duty only when it can be demonstrated that A foresaw that B would reasonably rely on that subsequent advice only. The relative authority, expertise and experience of the two advisors will be factors to be considered in the duty analysis. Further, this paper will show that independent subsequent advice can be relevant for questions of causation and contributory negligence.