|
''Winterbottom v Wright'' (1842) 10 M&W 109 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 negligently failed to perform his duty in this behalf."〔Lunney & Oliphant (2003) ''pp''91-92〕 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Winterbottom v Wright」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|