Winterbottom v. Wright

Infobox Court Case
name = Winterbottom v. Wright
court = Exchequer of pleas


date_filed =
date_decided = 1842
full_name = Winterbottom v. Wright
citations = (1842) 10 M&W 109; (1842) 152 ER 402
judges = Lord Abinger, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer
Baron Alderson
Baron Gurney
Baron Rolfe
prior_actions =
subsequent_actions = none
opinions = Abinger, Alderson and Rolfe BB gave judgments against the plaintiff, Gurney B concurring
transcripts =

"Winterbottom v. Wright" (1842) was an important case in English common law responsible for constraining the law's stance on negligence in the nineteenth century.

Facts

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 neglectly failed to perform his duty in this behalf."Lunney & Oliphant (2003) "pp"91-92]

Judgment

In 1842, the law’s 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" [(1837) 2 M&W 519; (1837) 150 ER 863] 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.

Later developments

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).

References

Bibliography

* cite journal | title=Torts. Liability of negligent manufacturer to remote vendee. The Rule of Winterbottom v. Wright | journal=University of Chicago Law Review | volume=3(4) | year=1936 | pages=673–674 | author= [Anon.]
* cite book | pages="pp"91-91 | title=Tort Law:Text and Materials | author=Lunney, M. & Oliphant, K. | edition=2nd ed | publisher=Oxford University Press | location =Oxford | year=2003 | id=ISBN 0-19-926055-9
* cite journal | title=Why privity entered tort - an historical reexamination of Winterbottom v. Wright | author=Palmer, V. | journal=American Journal of Legal History | volume=27(1) | year=1983 | pages=85–98 | doi=10.2307/844914

External links

* cite web | url=http://www.lawrence.edu/fast/boardmaw/Wntbtm_Wr.html | title=Transcript of report | publisher =Lawrence University | accessdate=2007-11-19