Winterbottom v Wright
Winterbottom v. Wright (1842, Court of Exchequer) was one of the key cases in English Common Law responsible for constraining the law's stance on negligence. The case was brought by Mr Winterbottom who claim that he had suffered injuries which "lamed him for life" because of negligence on the part of the Postmaster-General who was responsible for the maintenance of mail delivering carriages. Mr Winterbottom was employed by a third party, Mr Atkinson, a mail co-contractor who had a contract with the Postmaster-General which outlined the Postmaster-General's responsibility for the carriage maintenance.
Before the ruling in Donoghue v Stevenson and the establishment of the neighbour principle the law’s only reference to negligence was in relation to a breach of contract and as the plaintiff was not in a contract with the defendant the Court of the Exchequer ruled in favour of the defendant. The case also hung on policy; if the plaintiff was able to sue then “there would be unlimited actions” and that the public utility of the Postmaster-General was such that allowing such actions would be undesirable for society.
See also
 | This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Winterbottom v. Wright (1842, Court of Exchequer) was one of the key cases in English Common Law responsible for constraining the law's stance on negligence. The case was brought by Mr. Winterbottom who claimed he had suffered injuries which "lamed him for life" because of negligence on the part of Mr. Wright who was contracted by the Postmaster-General. Mr. Wright was responsible for the maintenance of mail delivering carriages. Mr. Winterbottom was employed by a third party, Mr. Nathaniel Atkinson, a mail co-contractor who had been contracted as coachman by the Postmaster-General. Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Winterbottom were aware of the contract which outlined Mr. Wright's responsibility for " fit, proper, safe and secure state and condition" of the carriage maintenance with the Postmaster. Mr. Winterbottom's case was dismissed because he was not directly named in the contract between the Postmaster and Mr. Wright and therefore had no cause of action.
Before the ruling in Donoghue v Stevenson and the establishment of the neighbour principle the law’s only reference to negligence was in relation to a breach of contract and as the plaintiff was not in a contract with the defendant the Court of the Exchequer ruled in favour of the defendant. The case also hung on policy; if the plaintiff was able to sue then “there would be unlimited actions” and that the public utility of the Postmaster-General was such that allowing such actions would be undesirable for society.