This document outlines 14 cases related to the development of negligence law in England during the 19th century. It summarizes key cases such as Langridge v. Levy (1837), which established liability for false representations, and Heaven v. Pender (1883), in which Judge Brett established the concept of duty of care. The document discusses how the law developed through a circular process of establishing rules in individual cases and then applying them to new situations, as judges sought to expand legal protections while avoiding opening the floodgates to litigation.
This document outlines 14 cases related to the development of negligence law in England during the 19th century. It summarizes key cases such as Langridge v. Levy (1837), which established liability for false representations, and Heaven v. Pender (1883), in which Judge Brett established the concept of duty of care. The document discusses how the law developed through a circular process of establishing rules in individual cases and then applying them to new situations, as judges sought to expand legal protections while avoiding opening the floodgates to litigation.
This document outlines 14 cases related to the development of negligence law in England during the 19th century. It summarizes key cases such as Langridge v. Levy (1837), which established liability for false representations, and Heaven v. Pender (1883), in which Judge Brett established the concept of duty of care. The document discusses how the law developed through a circular process of establishing rules in individual cases and then applying them to new situations, as judges sought to expand legal protections while avoiding opening the floodgates to litigation.
INTRODUCTION The second half of the 19th Century is generally marked as the time when the law of negligence was entering its second era of development. This time witnessed the great expansion of legal protection to persons who got injured in different places. The courts tried to use the so called antiquated rules in order to break through the narrow compass within which the law of negligence was in its embryonic stage.
Introduction cont… The development of the law of negligence took a kind of a process which was circular in nature There was a back and forth movement manifested in three main steps which are: 1. Enunciation of the rule 2. The application of the rule to a future case 3. Establishment of the rule The judges limited themselves to apply the theories within the existing laws and noth otherwise.
Introduction cont… The judges during this time were not ready to open up the courts to a floodgate of litigation. Even in those cases where courts were seen to have opened up a new ground of liability, such a ground was bound to face a number of qualifications. Judges were not ready to open up a pandora box. They considered themselves to be content with pigeonholes of liability rather than broader rules of liability.
It is said that because the development of the law
of negligence was not in the straight motion to the extent that slowly the court developed new theories apart from the strict ones and invite other theories within their decisions as it will be supported by different cases decided by those courts.
1. LANGRIDGE V. LEVY [1837] FACTS The father of the plaintiff brought from the defendant a gun telling him that it was to be used by himself and his sons. The defendant falsely represented to him that the gun was safe, good and secure. The gun turned out to be unsafe, ill manufactured and dangerous and while being used by the plaintiff, it exploded and injured the plaintiff. HOLDING; in favour of the plaintiff
father for the use of himself and his sons and had knowingly made a false warrant that it is safe and secure while it was not, and on the basis of such warrant, the plaintiff used it to his detriment, the defendant is liable.
2.WINTERBOTTOM V. WRIGHT [1842] FACTS A contracted with the Post Master General to provide a mail coach to convey mail bags along a certain line of the road. At the same time, B contracted to hire horses to coach along the same line, at the same time. B and his other co contractors hired C to drive the coach. In the process of driving the coach C got injured and brought an action against A for damages due to injury sustained in the cause of driving the coach while broke down due to latent defects in the construction of the way.
the injured party is no privy to the contract entered, there is no action which can be taken or maintained within the eyes of the law. This is the case in which the court decided that the injured party can not be compensated if he/ she is too remote to be contemplated by the defendant
3. LONGMEID V. HOLLIDAY [1851] FACTS The defendant a retailer supplied a lamp to the plaintiff’s wife for the purpose of being used by him and his wife. The lamp was defectively constructed but the defendant could not have not known that as he was not the manufacturer. While using the said lamp, the lamp exploded and severely injured the plaintiff’s wife. HOLDING: The defendant not liable
RATIO DECIDENDI: Where in the ordinary cause of doing business between one individual and another, a machine that is not dangerous in itself but which might become so by latent defect entirely unknown, is let or given by one person to another, the former is not answerable to the latter for subsequent damage accruing from the use of it
The court distinguished Langridge v. Levy, this time on the ground that that was a case of fraud. The court thus held that there is no liability to third parties when a person supplies under contract and without fraud a thing not dangerous in itself but which became so by a latent defect unknown to the supplier, although discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care.
4.GEORGE V. SKIVINGSTON [1869] FACTS The plaintiff purchased a chemical compound from the defendant as a hair wash for the use of his wife. The defendant represented it to be fit and proper to be used for washing the hair. The compound was so negligently and improperly made. When the plaintiff’s wife applied it she sustained injuries.
RATIO DECIDENDI: As between the defendant and the
wife, there was no contract. The case of Langridge V. Levy was cited with approval where the court said that if negligence is substituted for fraud, the analogy between Langridge V. Levy and the case at hand becomes complete
The case of Longmeid v. Holliday is distinguished on
the ground that in that case, there was no negligence on the facts
5. HEAVEN V. PENDER [1883] FACTS The plaintiff was a workman employed by a ship painter. The ship painter entered into the contract with the ship owner whose ship was in the defendant’s dock for the purpose of being painted. The defendant, the dock owner supplied under a contract with the ship owner, an ordinary stage to be slung outside the ship to facilitate in painting the ship. The ropes by which the stage was slung had been scorched and were unfit for use. When the plaintiff began to use the stage, the ropes broke, the stage fell and the plaintiff was injured.
circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that every one of ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to these circumstances, he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such a danger.
NOTE This is a case in which judges reached the same decision but used not only different principles but also different patters of reasoning. Important for the future development of the law of negligence was the decision of the minority judge (Brett MR)
6. DERRY V. PEEK [1889] FACTS The defendants represented in their prospectus that their company had been given special permission by an Act of parliament to use steam power in propelling tramways. The plaintiff relying on this representation bought shares in the defendants’ company. The board of trade, however, refused to consent to the use of steam power. Consequently, the defendants company suffered heavy loss and had to be wound up. The plaintiff brought an action of deceit against the defendants
HOLDING: The Court of Appeal held that, the defendants were liable to make good to the plaintiffs the loss sustained by taking the shares. The defendants appealed to the House of Lords. The Appeal was allowed and the order of the court of appeal was reversed.
RATIO DECIDENDI In an action of deceit, the plaintiff must prove actual fraud that is a false representation made knowingly or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false and intending the plaintiff to act upon it
7. LE LIEVRE & DENNES V. GOULD [1893] FACTS H. The owner of the land arranged wit D for loan to be paid to L, a builder, on the security of a mortgage of the land. The money was to be paid by installments at certain stages in the progress of buildings to be erected on the land by L, and the stages were to be certified by an architect. H. asked the defendant G who was the an archtect and surveyor to issue these certificates.
Facts cont… In the process D transferred the mortgage to LL after four installments had been paid on certificates furnished by G. in due course, the plaintiffs lost money on this transaction and sued for damages. The plaintiff filed their plaint alleged that H in employing G to give the certificate, was acting as the agent of the plaintiffs and that in giving the certificate the defendant acted fraudulently or negligently. The defendant denied that he had been employed by D or on his behalf to give the certificates. He also denied the charge of fraud and negligence. 25 [email protected] Tuesday, July 31, 2018 In dealing with the previous authorities, the court said the ratio decidendi in D v. P was a wide one. Lord Esher cited his own opinion in H v. P but distinguished it saying that it had to be narrowed down in order to apply only to situations where there is physical proximity between the parties. He was of the view that a person would only be liable if he was near the person injured by which he meant physically near the person. The court faced by its own decision in H v. P circumvented it by saying that the minority rule in H v. P was too wide and the majority rule had no application in the facts of the case at hand. The defendant was held not liable.
In appeal also the appeal was dismissed and the judgement was given in favour of the defendants. RATIO DECIDENDI: the question of liability for negligence cannot arise at all until it is established that a man who has been negligent owed some duty to the person who seeks to make him liable for negligence. OBITER DICTA: decision in the case of Heaven V. Pender
8. NOCTON V. LORD ASHBURTON [1914] FACTS The plaintiff Nocton claimed damages from Lord Ashburton, the defendant who was a lawyer on the ground that he had suffered loss as the result of improper advice which he had been given by Nocton and had been induced to act upon him. (he had been advised to release part of a mortgaged security). As a result of acting upon that advice, he suffered loss ( the security released became insufficient).
The court of first instance held that there has been no fraud and dismissed the action. The court of appeal reversed that finding and granted relief on the ground that Nocton had been guilty of actual fraud. The House of Lords held that the Court of Appeal had been wrong in reversing the finding of fact of the trial judge.
Their Lordship went on, however, to hold that the plaintiff had been entitled to succeed even in the absence of actual fraud on the basis that duty arising out of his fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff and as the result of that breach the plaintiff had suffered loss. The decision of the Court of Appeal was therefore affirmed but on different grounds
9. DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON [1932] FACTS A friend bought a bottle of ginger beer made of dark opaque glass and manufactured by the defendant and gave it to his girl friend, the plaintiff. The plaintiff drank some, then discovered that there were some reminants of a dead snail in the bottle. As a result, the plaintiff became seriously ill. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover damages for negligence by the defendant in manufacturing the beer.
Lord Atkin approved of Brett’s proposition in Heaven V. Pender but discarded the limitation of nearness or physical proximity put on it by court of Appeal in L V. G He went on to state his famous neighbourhood principle: Acts or omission which any moral code could censure cannot in a practical world be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand a relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy.
The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour and the lawyer’s question “who is your neighbour?” received a restricted reply you must take reasonable care to avoid acts which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour?
The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my min d to the acts or omissions which are called in question. Lord Atkin further said that the test of proximity introduced by Lord Esher in L v. G should not be confined to physical proximity.
After propounding the neighbourhood principle, he went on to hold that a manufacturer of products which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him, with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in injury to the consumer’s life or property owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. The defendant was thus held liable. The case was decided by a majority of 3-2
concept of negligence known in the law of torts today. This notion introduces three aspects for it to be completed. Negligence consist in the duty of care, breach of the duty and damage. A person alleging that another person was negligent must necessarily prove these three things if he is to succeed at all
10. FARR V. BUTTERS BROS & CO [1932] FACTS The defendants who were the manufacturers supplied a crane, in parts to the builders. The deceased an employee of the builders supervised the assembly of the crane. While assembling the crane, he discovered a latent defect in one of the parts but he started operating the crane before rectifying the defect. He was killed when a jib fell, the death being caused by the defects. The widow sued the manufacturer of the crane in negligence.
At the time this case was being heard in the High Court, the case of D V. S had not yet been decided. The court said that it would have preferred to follow Brett’s decision in H v. P as to suppliers of goods but as that was minority rule, it was bound by the majority rule in H V. P thus the trial court held that the defendant was liable.
The defendant then appealed to the court of appeal. At that time the High Court had already given the decision in D V. S, the Court of Appeal thus considered the rule in D V. S but found that it could not apply in that case because whereas in D V. S the defendants were held liable because the goods were manufactured in such a condition that there was no reasonable possibility of intermediate inspection of the goods, in F V. B there was a reasonable possibility of intermediate inspection.
Relying heavily on the material facts that the defendant actually knew of the defect having discovered it but continued to work with the crane they allowed the appeal by the defendants i.e. held that the defendants were not liable.
enunciated in D V. S could not be applied because the husband of the plaintiff had had a chance of intermediate inspection of the machines which caused his death. Scrutton L J in this case makes it explicit that English judges in making decisions are controlled by the facts before them.
11. GRANT V. AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS [1936] FACTS The plaintiff contracted a skin disease from wearing a pair of woolen pants manufactured by the defendant which were defective in that they contained excessive quantities of a chemical which, it was found, had been negligently left in the process of manufacture. When the plaintiff wore the pants after buying them, he contracted dermatitis (a skin disease). The plaintiff sued the defendant in negligence and the retailers in contract. 43 [email protected] Tuesday, July 31, 2018 The retailers were clearly liable in contract. The judgement of the court was concerned with the liability of the manufacturers who had no contract with the plaintiff. This was the decision of a judicial committee of the Privy council which was not bound by English decisions as it was not part of the English legal system. The case came within the principle of Donoghue’s case, decision against the respondents, appeal allowed with costs
12. CANDLER V. CRANE CHRISTMAS [1951] FACTS the plaintiff invested money in a company relying on accounts put before him accounts put before him by accountants. The accounts were wrong and negligently prepared. The plaintiff lost money and sued the accountants. HOLDING The court of appeal held in favour of the defendant in that they were not liable (majority of 2 to 1).
RATIO DECIDENDI; there is no duty in negligence as for negligent misstatement.
OBITER DICTA; importance in this case is the
dissenting judgement of Lord Denning L . J which sought to make it clear that since the House of Lords’ decision in Donoghue V. Stevenson’s case, no distinction existed between negligent manufacture causing physical injury and negligent statements causing economic loss.
NOTE; This was the case of negligent statements causing financial loss. It was the first case of negligent statement after the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Donoghue V. Stevenson.
13. CLAYTON V. WOODMAN [1962] FACTS The plaintiff who was the bricklayer who was employed by the first defendant a firm of builders who had contracted with the second defendant a regional hospital board to install a lift and motor room in one of their hospitals. The contract required that the work should be done with directions of an architect third defendant. To install a lift was necessary to demolish part of the building.
On the instruction of the architect the plaintiff embarked in the installation in the process of which he was injured and brought this action against the defendants.
The High Court held that the firs Defendant and
third defendants are liable. This was reversed later by the Court of Appeal on grounds other than those of Salmond J.
NOTE This was the case of negligent statement leading to physical injury and not economic loss. The problem before the court was to determine which of the existing authorities on negligent statements was to guide. Also the court had to consider whether Donoghue V. Stevenson was an appropriate authority.
14. HEDLEY BYRNE & CO LTD V. HELLER & PARTNERS LTD [1963] FACTS The appellants were a firm of advertising agents. The respondents were merchant bankers. The appellants case against the respondents was that having placed on behalf of a client X on credit terms substantial orders for advertising time on the television programmes and for advertising space in certain newspapers on terms under which the appellants became personally liable to the TV and newspaper companies.
They inquired through their own banker as to the credit worthiness of X who were the customers of the respondent. The appeal was dismissed and the case was decided in favour of the respondents. When a mere inquiry is made by one banker of another who stands in no special relationship to him then in the absence of special circumstances from which a contract to be careful can be inferred,… there is no duty excepting the duty of common honesty