Cases and Judges PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary of early cases for the development of negligence....

Description

Cases and Judges Langridge v Levi

Facts of the Case 

Parke B. 





Winterbottom v Wright



Lord Abinger C.B. 





Longmeid v Holliday



Parke B. 

 





Legal Issue

Ratio Decidendi 

The plaintiffs father purchased a gun from the defendant. The defendant was informed prior to the sale that the plaintiff it would be used by him and his sons. The defendant knowingly misrepresented the gun as good quality and provided a warranty on the gun that it was safe to use. The gun subsequently was the cause of injury to the plaintiff.

Is there a duty of care for those outside the privity of contract?

Post Master had a contract with the company that employed the plaintiff to drive the carts. Post Master had another contract with the defendant to maintain the carts. Defendant did not maintain the carts sufficiently. Plaintiff was injured as a result of the carts not being maintained properly.

Can the plaintiff recover  damages due to the negligence of the defendant regardless of  the lack of a contractual agreement and the lack of misrepresentation. 

Holliday sold a lamp to plaintiffs husband for use in the home that plaintiff lives. Holliday gave warranty to the quality of the lamp. The lamp was defective. It was implied that plaintiff would use the lamp. Holliday did not manufacture the lamp and did not know the lamp was not defective. Lamp exploded and caused injury to plaintiff.

 Is there a remedy for the plaintiff under the precedent of Langridge  v Levi?







Where there is no contract there can be no duty imposed as if duty was imposed the liability would be endless. Where a person knowingly misrepresents an instrument, that is not in itself dangerous, as safe to use and is consequentially the cause of injury or harm. There may be an action lie in the tort of deceit (fraud).  This action can only succeed if the misrepresentation was made knowing the plaintiff were to be carrying out the act in which the fraudulent representation was the cause of harm. Liability can be imposed for harm that is caused via misrepresentation of goods to those that it is known, whether expressed or implied, by the defendant will use the goods. Langridge v Levi distinguished in this case as the plaintiff was not known to the defendant. There can be no liability imposed where there is no misrepresentation nor where the plaintiff is not known to the defendant. Contractual liability can not be extended to third parties to prevent the 'flood gates' of "absurd and outrageous consequences" Contractual liability can only be imposed within the parties who enter the contract.

Where there is no known misrepresentation of the quality of good there can be no liability. If there was a certain level of skill that had not been used in the circumstances there may be an action i.e. Misfeasance e.g. Surgeon, apothecary etc.

George v Skivington Kelly C.B. & Channel B agreeing Pigott B.









Plaintiffs husband went to an apothecary to purchase a shampoo for his wife's hair. Apothecar y compounded the chemical to be fit for the use of washing hair. The apothecary was the only person who knew the ingredients of shampoo and made no steps to ensure the safety of the compound prior to selling it. Plaintiffs wife was injured from use.

 Is there a duty of care owed, outside of contract, when harm results from a product that is negligently made,  or made without ordinary care and skill, and is represented as  safe for use by the plaintiff?







 

Not necessary for action in the case there is no contract if the contract has been made through inducement. Kelly B. Warranty need not be considered as the defendant sold the compound to the husband for the plaintiff to use to wash her hair. Kelly B Tradesman must use ordinary care and skill to ensure the product is fit for use of the person who's use it was intended. Kelly B. Duty extends to third party as the third party was known to the defendant as a consumer of their product. Pigott B. Duty cannot extend to a plaintiff that was not the intended plaintiff nor if the plaintiff used the compound for something other than its ordinary use. Pigott B. Duty can only arise if the specific use and the plaintiff is known. Pigott B. Affirms Langridge v Levi - Sale made by way of inducement. Distinguished from Longmeid v Holliday - No negligence on behalf of the vendor...