LSM Summary Notes
Case Studies
Case Name About Dangerous? Negligence Party to Duty False Precedential value of Development of tort of
___________ found? contract/3rd representation/direct L&L negligence
Result party
____________
Contract type
Langridge v Gun Y– Yes (but could Third party, Y – arising from Levy liable on N/A Scope of duty of care –
Levy (1837) (defective) instrument is not sue in but intended contract: grounds of deceit. relevance of contract –
dangerous in negligence as end user. dangerous fraud -reasonably
(Plaintiff is itself. Bought it did not exist Contract object. → representation foreseeable; reasonable
son) with the in law at this between about safety and reliance
intention of time, so they father and General quality
Parke B being loaded sued for seller. obligation on → D knew this was Knowing
and fired fraud) ____________ vendors false misrepresentation gives
___________ Sale towards users rise to liability for harm
Plaintiff won of goods to for persons known.
take
reasonable Proceeds upon the
care grounds of knowledge
and fraud of the
defendant.
Winterbottom Mail-coach No No Third party: Breach of No representation Narrowed the L&L Scope of duty of care -
v Wright but class of contractual was made involving principle. relevance of contract – no
(1842) Latent defect (no persons who duty: to keep the coachman. fraud -foreseeability;
representation would be an coach in safe Floodgates argument, remoteness
(plaintiff = included end user condition. No fraud or prevents lots of people
mail coachman – misrepresentation. from being able to sue Liability cannot arise
coachman. this was contract and Only duty of coachman without contractual
Defendant needed to the care to plaintiff relationship.
supplied the succeed in obligations of in the contract, Contractual liability
coach) negligence = safety under it not person confined to parties who
privity of applied only driving carriage enter them to avoid
___________ contract sale). to Postmaster => privity. absurd/outrageous
, Plaintiff lost General (the consequences.
Negligence plaintiff of Negligence not = 3rd party without
not relevant that contract) relevant to remedy because no duty
to decision ____________ decision is owed
Supply?
Longmeid v Lamp No? N - no fraud Party - but No, not for No - direct but rule ... If anyone knowingly Scope of duty of care
Holliday can't bring latent defect in set out clearly tells a falsehood, with where there is a contract
(1851) Latent defect No evidence personal suit not dangerous intent to induce another - no fraud:
that as female item Sold in good faith. to do an act which
Parke B Was not defendant ____________ results in his loss he is Absent fraudulent
inherently knew of Sale liable to that person in misrepresentation - there
___________ dangerous defect an action for deceit. is no action for a latent
Nonsuit (ie. defect in "non
Case Transactions dangerous" goods (eg
dismissed) in the lamp).
‘ordinary
intercourse Influential obiter on
of life’ are where a duty of care will
not covered lie for harm caused to 3rd
parties.
George v Shampoo Must be fit Yes - no fraud No - but 3rd Yes. No Judge substituted ‘fraud’ Scope of duty of care –
Skivington for purpose party knew ‘duty … to use for ‘negligence’ and privity of contract
(1869) ‘the defendant shampoo for ordinary and maintained the irrelevant foreseeability –
‘the article so negligently wife reasonable circumstances were remoteness – negligence
turned out and ____________ care and skill’ close enough to L&L to case
Kelly CB unfit for unskillfully Sale follow that decision.
Channell B -cc purpose’ compounded Application Reasonable skill and care
the article’ L&L: Kelly CB finds L&L not used – not fit for use
‘duty arises … precedential value, but
Piggot B -cc that it should focuses on knowledge of Duty to 3rd party (wife)
be reasonably end user as giving rise to because known to be the
Cleasby B
fit for the duty (reasonable end user.
___________ purpose to foreseeability) to ensure
which it was item ‘reasonable fit for Reasoning moves away
Plaintiffs won destined, and purpose’ from dangerous/non-
that it may be Cleasby B finds L&L of dangerous dichotomy to
Case Studies
Case Name About Dangerous? Negligence Party to Duty False Precedential value of Development of tort of
___________ found? contract/3rd representation/direct L&L negligence
Result party
____________
Contract type
Langridge v Gun Y– Yes (but could Third party, Y – arising from Levy liable on N/A Scope of duty of care –
Levy (1837) (defective) instrument is not sue in but intended contract: grounds of deceit. relevance of contract –
dangerous in negligence as end user. dangerous fraud -reasonably
(Plaintiff is itself. Bought it did not exist Contract object. → representation foreseeable; reasonable
son) with the in law at this between about safety and reliance
intention of time, so they father and General quality
Parke B being loaded sued for seller. obligation on → D knew this was Knowing
and fired fraud) ____________ vendors false misrepresentation gives
___________ Sale towards users rise to liability for harm
Plaintiff won of goods to for persons known.
take
reasonable Proceeds upon the
care grounds of knowledge
and fraud of the
defendant.
Winterbottom Mail-coach No No Third party: Breach of No representation Narrowed the L&L Scope of duty of care -
v Wright but class of contractual was made involving principle. relevance of contract – no
(1842) Latent defect (no persons who duty: to keep the coachman. fraud -foreseeability;
representation would be an coach in safe Floodgates argument, remoteness
(plaintiff = included end user condition. No fraud or prevents lots of people
mail coachman – misrepresentation. from being able to sue Liability cannot arise
coachman. this was contract and Only duty of coachman without contractual
Defendant needed to the care to plaintiff relationship.
supplied the succeed in obligations of in the contract, Contractual liability
coach) negligence = safety under it not person confined to parties who
privity of applied only driving carriage enter them to avoid
___________ contract sale). to Postmaster => privity. absurd/outrageous
, Plaintiff lost General (the consequences.
Negligence plaintiff of Negligence not = 3rd party without
not relevant that contract) relevant to remedy because no duty
to decision ____________ decision is owed
Supply?
Longmeid v Lamp No? N - no fraud Party - but No, not for No - direct but rule ... If anyone knowingly Scope of duty of care
Holliday can't bring latent defect in set out clearly tells a falsehood, with where there is a contract
(1851) Latent defect No evidence personal suit not dangerous intent to induce another - no fraud:
that as female item Sold in good faith. to do an act which
Parke B Was not defendant ____________ results in his loss he is Absent fraudulent
inherently knew of Sale liable to that person in misrepresentation - there
___________ dangerous defect an action for deceit. is no action for a latent
Nonsuit (ie. defect in "non
Case Transactions dangerous" goods (eg
dismissed) in the lamp).
‘ordinary
intercourse Influential obiter on
of life’ are where a duty of care will
not covered lie for harm caused to 3rd
parties.
George v Shampoo Must be fit Yes - no fraud No - but 3rd Yes. No Judge substituted ‘fraud’ Scope of duty of care –
Skivington for purpose party knew ‘duty … to use for ‘negligence’ and privity of contract
(1869) ‘the defendant shampoo for ordinary and maintained the irrelevant foreseeability –
‘the article so negligently wife reasonable circumstances were remoteness – negligence
turned out and ____________ care and skill’ close enough to L&L to case
Kelly CB unfit for unskillfully Sale follow that decision.
Channell B -cc purpose’ compounded Application Reasonable skill and care
the article’ L&L: Kelly CB finds L&L not used – not fit for use
‘duty arises … precedential value, but
Piggot B -cc that it should focuses on knowledge of Duty to 3rd party (wife)
be reasonably end user as giving rise to because known to be the
Cleasby B
fit for the duty (reasonable end user.
___________ purpose to foreseeability) to ensure
which it was item ‘reasonable fit for Reasoning moves away
Plaintiffs won destined, and purpose’ from dangerous/non-
that it may be Cleasby B finds L&L of dangerous dichotomy to
