''Winterbottom v Wright'' (1842
10 M&W 109was an important case in
English common law responsible for constraining the law's 19th-century stance on
negligence.
Facts
The
plaintiff Winterbottom had been
contracted by the
Postmaster-General to drive a
mail coach supplied by the Postmaster. The
defendant
In court proceedings, a defendant is a person or object who is the party either accused of committing a crime in criminal prosecution or against whom some type of civil relief is being sought in a civil case.
Terminology varies from one jurisdic ...
Wright had been contracted by the Postmaster to
maintain
Maintenance may refer to:
Biological science
* Maintenance of an organism
* Maintenance respiration
Non-technical maintenance
* Alimony, also called ''maintenance'' in British English
* Champerty and maintenance, two related legal doct ...
the coach in a safe state. The coach collapsed while Winterbottom was driving, and he was injured. He claimed that Wright had "negligently conducted himself, and so utterly disregarded his aforesaid contract and so wholly and negligently failed to perform his duty in this behalf."
[Lunney & Oliphant (2003) pp. 91-92.]
In ''Winterbottom v. Wright'', the court held that the plaintiff had no redress. The principle of ''Winterbottom'' meant that consumers who were injured by defective products in the 19th century had no legal action against the defective execution of a contract to which they were not expressly privy.
Judgment
In 1842, the law's only recognition of "negligence" was in respect of a
breach of contract
Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party ...
. As the plaintiff was not in a
contract with the defendant, the court ruled in favour of the defendant on the basis of the doctrine of
privity of contract.
Winterbottom sought to extend the ''
ratio'' of the court in ''
Langridge v Levy''
['' Langridge v Levy']
(1837) 2 M&W 519
(1837) 150 ER 863. but the court rejected that on the grounds that that case involved a gun whose safety had been
misrepresented by the vendor.
The case was also possibly influenced by
public policy. If the plaintiff were able to sue," there would be unlimited actions" and the public utility of the Postmaster-General was such that allowing such actions would be undesirable for society.
Significance
Though
Master of the Rolls William Brett sought to establish a general principle of
duty of care in ''
Heaven v. Pender
''Heaven v Pender'' (1883) (11 QBD 503, Court of Appeal) was an English tort law case, which foreshadowed the birth of the modern law of negligence.
Facts
Pender was the owner of a dry dock used for ship works, and Heaven was a ship painter ...
'' (1883), his judgment was at variance with the majority of the court. The privity argument was subsequently rejected in common law in the
United States in ''
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
''MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.''is a famous New York Court of Appeals opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo that removed the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions.
Facts
The plaintiff, Donald C. MacPherson, a stonecutt ...
'' (1916) and finally in
England by the doctrine of the "neighbour principle" in ''
Donoghue v. Stevenson
was a Lists of landmark court decisions, landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in Common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotlan ...
'' (1932). The evolution is explained in the article on
common law.
Case law
*''
Butterfield v Forrester
''Butterfield v. Forrester'', 11 East. 60, 103 Eng. Rep. 926 (K.B. 1809), was an English case before the King's Bench that was the first appearance of contributory negligence as a common law defence against negligence.
Facts
Forrester (D) place ...
''
*''
Davies v Mann
''Davies v. Mann'', 152 Eng. Rep. 588 (1882), was an English case that contained the first formulation of the "last clear chance" or “last opportunity rule” doctrine in negligence law.
The case concerned an accident in which a donkey, belong ...
''
*''
May v Burdett
''May v. Burdett'', 9 Q.B. 101 (1846), was an English case argued decided before the Queen's Bench that ruled a plaintiff injured by a dangerous animal kept by the defendant had a prima facie case for negligence even without a showing that the ...
''
*''
Paris v Stepney BC
''Paris v Stepney Borough Council'' 950UKHL 3 was a decision of the House of Lords that significantly affected the concept of Standard of care in common law. The plaintiff Paris was employed by the then Metropolitan Borough of Stepney, Stepne ...
''
Notes
References
*
*
*
External links
*{{ cite web , url=http://www.lawrence.edu/fast/boardmaw/Wntbtm_Wr.html , title=Transcript of report , publisher =Lawrence University , accessdate=2007-11-19
1842 in case law
1842 in British law
Negligence case law
English tort case law
Exchequer of Pleas cases