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

Tort Law - differences between the linguistic rules of negligence and strict liability - Essay congresswomanAlthough this notion of liability was not quickly appreciate, by the former(a) nineteenth century, it came to be recognised that iodin could call regaining 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 well recognised factual situations wherein a duty had been assumed to exist. Complications arose when defendant acted in pursuance of arriveual obligation. Hence, by early nineteenth century, a fellowship to a contract could sue another troupe 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, matter-of-fact creation injured due to negligence of coachman. Duty existing between shapers, suppliers and consum ers who are bound by a chain of contracts also came to be recognised in due course. Originally plaintiff could only claim under 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 own rights through separate warranties under their respective contracts. Early cases carry 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 bear on 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 otherwi se there would be endless stream of claims sexual climax 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 following the criteria. 1. The defendant must owe a duty of awe towards the claimant (plaintiff). 2. That duty has been breached by the defendant. 3. The breach of the defendant has resulted in loss or damage to the claimant. 4. The loss sustained through defendants negligence is not too remote or is within the kitchen stove his duty.4 Three-stage test In order to avoid frivolous claims, a three stage test was overconfident by the House of Lords in Caparo v Dickman 5 by effectively recasting the neighbourhood principle originally enunciated by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson6, the three stage-test being 1) foreseeability of harm or loss, 2) enough of proxi mity of relationship between the parties to the dispute, and 3) justness, fairness 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 alternatively of an actual loss of ? 465,000 relating to Fidelity Plc. The House of Lords reasoned that auditors had no