Brief - Winterbottom v Wright PDF

Preview

Summary

outline for the case...

Description

Winterottomv.Wright xchequerofPlea 152ng.Rep.402(x.1842)

RuleofLaw A plaintiff who lacks privity of contract with a defendant may not sue the defendant based on negligent performance of a contract made between the defendantandathirdparty.

Fact Wright (defendant) owned a coach business and contracted with the Postmaster-General to supply coaches to carry the mail. As part of the contract, Wright agreed to keep the coaches in good condition and personally assume the duty of all maintenance and repairs. Atkinson also contracted with the Postmaster to supply horses and drivers for all coaches. Winterbottom (plaintiff) was employed by Atkinson as a driver. One day, he was driving a coach which had been serviced by Wright. A latent defect caused the coach to break down, and threw Winterbottom to the ground. Winterbottom suffered injuries and brought suit against Wright for damages.

Iue Whether a plaintiff lacking privity of contract with a defendant may sue the defendant based on negligent performance of the defendant’s contract with a third party.

HoldingandReaoning(Ainger,C..) No. Winterbottom may not recover for damages against Wright because Winterbottom had no contractual relationship with Wright, and Wright did not owe Winterbottom a legal duty of care based on Wright’s contract with the Postmaster. A plaintiff who lacks privity of contract with a defendant may not sue the defendant based on negligent performance of a contract made between the defendant and a third party. Liability on the contract without privity may exist only if the defendant originally contracted to perform a public duty or prevent a public nuisance, and acted negligently. Wright’s contract was made with the Postmaster to provide coaches for mail services. Winterbottom was employed by a third party company as a driver, and thus was not a party to the contract between Wright and the Postmaster. Winterbottom may not sue Wright based on breach of contract. Additionally, Wright’s contract was not for the performance of a public duty

or prevention of a nuisance. Wright agreed to provide coaches to assist in mail delivery. However, in so doing, he did not assume the duty of personally carrying the mail, or of protecting from harm every person who might use the coaches. The only action that could possibly be brought against Wright would be by the Postmaster for Wright’s failure to properly maintain the coaches. However, once the Postmaster settles his claim (if any) against Wright, Wright should not be additionally liable in tort for claims made by third parties such as Winterbottom. Winterbottom’s suit is dismissed....