Tort Law - differences between the principles of negligence and strict Essay

Tort Law - differences between the principles of negligence and strict liability - analyse ExampleAlthough this notion of liability was not quickly recognised, by the early nineteenth century, it came to be recognised that one could claim damages for negligent or wilful conduct of another contrary to law as held in Ansell v Waterhouse 1. Historical development But this was confined to a few head recognised factual situations wherein a duty had been assumed to exist. Complications arose when defendant acted in pursuance of contractual obligation. Hence, by early nineteenth century, a party to a contract could march another party for breach of tortious duty mandated by law. Thus, it began to be recognised that a stranger to a contract could sue for damages or injury caused due to negligent conduct in the execution of a contract. For example, pedestrian being injured due to negligence of coachman. obligation existing between manufacturers, suppliers and consumers who are bound by a chain of contracts also came to be recognised in due course. Originally plaintiff could unless claim nether his contract and was barred to claim under contract he was not a party to. This meant that each of the party had to protect its proclaim rights through separate warranties under their respective contracts. Early cases have dealt with manufacturers/suppliers liability for defective goods or equipment supplied. It was often questioned whether a plaintiff not being a party to the initial contract of sale or supply could claim the warranty benefit promised by the manufacturer or suppler2. Negligence In Winterbottom v Wright3, question arose whether the plaintiff could claim for injury sustained by him due to the defendants negligent driving of the coach the former had hired under a contract with the Post Master General. Three judges gave opinions favouring the defendant holding that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as otherwise there would be endless stream of claims coming from strangers. It is argued that the stand taken by the three judges is at odds given that a pedestrian could claim from the defendant for any injury sustained by him due to negligent driving of the defendant coachman. Therefore, negligence claims have to satisfy the adjacent the criteria. 1. The defendant must owe a duty of care towards the claimant (plaintiff). 2. That duty has been breached by the defendant. 3. The breach of the defendant has resulted in discharge or damage to the claimant. 4. The loss sustained through defendants negligence is not too remote or is within the scope his duty.4 Three-stage test In order to stay off frivolous claims, a three stage test was prescribed by the House of Lords in Caparo v Dickman 5 by effectively recasting the vicinity principle originally enunciated by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson6, the three stage-test being 1) foreseeability of harm or loss, 2) sufficiency of proximity of relationship bet ween the parties to the dispute, and 3) justness, forthrightness and reasonableness of imposing duty on the defendant/injurer in all circumstances. Thus, in Caparo, the auditors Dickman were held not liable to the claimant Caparo for their misstatement in the audited accounts of profits as ? 1. 3 m instead of an actual loss of ? 465,000 relating to Fidelity Plc. The House of Lords reasoned that auditors had no