Winterbottom v Wright
|Winterbottom v Wright|
|Court||Exchequer of pleas|
|Full case name||Winterbottom v. Wright|
|Citation(s)||(1842) 10 M&W 109; (1842) 152 ER 402|
|Abinger, Alderson and Rolfe BB gave judgments against the plaintiff, Gurney B concurring|
|Judge(s) sitting||Baron Rolfe|
The plaintiff Winterbottom had been contracted by the Postmaster-General to drive a mail coach supplied by the Postmaster. The defendant Wright had been contracted by the Postmaster to maintain 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."
In Winterbottom v. Wright, the court held that the plaintiff had no redress. It held that since the defendant had a duty of care in contract it could not also have a duty of care in tort. Therefore, as the industrial revolution developed in the 19th century, maintenance contracted owed no duty of care to individuals not involved in the contract. Similar social engineering saw the courts in that era shield employers from actions by injured workers.
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.
In 1842, the laws only recognition of "negligence" was in respect of a breach of contract. 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 but the court rejected this 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.
Though Master of the Rolls William Brett sought to establish a general principle of duty of care in Heaven v. Pender (1883), his judgment was at variance with the majority of the court. The privity argument was subsequently rejected in common law in the U.S. in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916) and finally in England by the doctrine of the "neighbour principle" in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932). This evolution is explained in the article on common law.
- Lunney & Oliphant (2003) pp91-92
- (1837) 2 M&W 519; (1837) 150 ER 863
- [Anon.] (1936). "Torts. Liability of negligent manufacturer to remote vendee. The Rule of Winterbottom v. Wright". University of Chicago Law Review 3 (4): 673674. doi:10.2307/1596713. JSTOR 1596713.
- Lunney, M. & Oliphant, K. (2003). Tort Law:Text and Materials (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. pp9191. ISBN 0-19-926055-9.
- Palmer, V. (1983). "Why privity entered tort - an historical reexamination of Winterbottom v. Wright". American Journal of Legal History 27 (1): 8598. doi:10.2307/844914. JSTOR 844914.
- "Transcript of report". Lawrence University. Retrieved 2007-11-19.