INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Know about the Case brief of White v. John Warrick & Co. Ltd – Barelaw.in
In this case, the court examined whether an exclusion clause in a contract governing the rental of a tricycle could discharge both contracts and thus, tortious negligence as well. White v. John Warrick & Co. Ltd
FACTS OF THE CASE
The defendants agreed to supply merchandise (a carrier-tricycle) to the plaintiff who was a newsagent and tobacconist operating from Canonbury.
To enable him deliver newspapers the defendants had agreed to hire him a tradesman’s tricycle as it is commonly known; one which has a large carrier in front for heavy luggage.
This was embodied in an agreement dated 13th April 1948.
They refer to themselves as owners and him hirer—on behalf of the defendant, whom he suggests used their printed form stating their name on it.
On Saturday June 3rd, someone purporting to be acting for the vendors visited the Plaintiff at his shop and left another tricycle that was out of order but which would serve as a standby one.
Before testing it, he quickly rode it back to his place of work.
After riding about a quarter of a mile up Mile End Road, its saddle suddenly slipped forward throwing him off the trike and causing injury to him.
While pushing this machine back home after standing upright with it on another occasion, its seat descended onto its cross bar.
When he looked at it more closely, however,
he discovered that its saddle had been shaking loose while he pedalled away from his store.
Moreover, He had not been seriously injured initially but tragically hurt his knee. /Then there were complications like synovitis that kept him in hospital much longer./ According to PARKER. J., who heard the plaintiff’s claim,
would have given £505 in damages if he had determined that they should be awarded her by way of compensation for her injuries.”/(Approximately,)/
That evaluation was only a preliminary one.
The case was filed by the plaintiff and he sought to hold them liable for torts (negligence) as well as under the contract.
ISSUES
Was the defendant in some way careless?
Did the obligations and commitments violated?
ESSENTIALS OF NEGLIGENCE
To bring a negligence claim, the following elements must be proven by any person who claims that another has negligently caused his injury:
Duty of care. One of the main conditions for establishing negligence is that a duty of care be owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
For more on this fundamental ingredient see below.
Duty Owed To “My neighbour” In addition, LORD ATKIN claimed that “my neighbour” refers to those people so closely or directly affected by my conduct as I am when considering whether it was right or wrong.
The Duty Must Be Owed To The Plaintiff Alone It is not enough that he simply establishes his duty of care, but also that such duty extends to him alone.
The fishwife plaintiff in Bourhill v. Young [2] got off a tram. As she was having her basket loaded on her back, there was an accident between a motorbike which had just overtaken the tram and a car parked 15 yards from it on the opposite side.
The accident occurred behind the tram and this made it impossible for the woman to see what happened or even notice that someone had died.
After she returned home from work that day, she found out about the accident but when she arrived at the scene of accident, she could see traces of blood on the road.
and then She was thus shocked, a thing that caused her to lose her eight-month unborn baby.
She sued his heirs for damages.
There were no duties owed by the deceased to Mrs Bourhill; hence no cause of action could be maintained by her.
BREACH OF THE DUTY TO TAKE CARE: A plaintiff has to prove that obligation of care has been violated or not fulfilled thereby showing negligence liability
In Municipality corporation Delhi v Subhagvanti [3], some people died as clock tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, fell down.
Even though it was only 40-45 years old when it fell down because its age was eighty years. Being responsible for maintenance and repair of the structure,
it means Municipal Corporation Of Delhi did not discharge its duty concerning that building.
A tree standing in middle of street fell on top of him and killed him when Sushila Devi was crossing a road under MCD v [4]. Liabilities were placed on Municipal Corporation
The last element required for negligence tort is actual harm suffered by injured party due to breach of this duty. Bodily hurt;
defamation; damages to property as injury to land and structures with its rights therein such as easements, profits à prendre etc.; economic loss; mental anguish or emotional distress are some of the forms of injuries.
In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra [5] a case where a doctor inserted a mop used in cleaning the patient into her uterus. A physician was held liable.
JUDGEMENT
According to Lord Denning, two different counts could be made out against the defendants for breach of contract and negligence.
The liability under breach of contract was more strict than that of negligence. Defendants could have been held liable under contract for providing a defective machine although they were not negligent,
the defense counsel admitted that where there is an outright tort committed by the defendant and not simply alleged negligence an exemption clause will not cover it but he argued that this was just breach of contract and not any separate tort.
The act should be framed as a contractual rather than tortious action because the plaintiff’s claim is based on the same facts which are necessary for both claims.
This particular case involved a tort rather than contractual claim for negligence.
That would be proved by thinking about an alternate scenario wherein plaintiff’s servant has been injured while riding on tricycle instead himself.
A negligence case would have been maintained by the servant if he could prove that the owners negligently sent a defective machine for immediate use.
This shows that defendants owed servant a duty. Also, this obligation was due to hirer personally.
It does not matter whether it is an act of omission or commission, violation of such responsibility makes up a tortuous act based on strict liability.
The Court of Appeal held that since the hirer had no immunity provision in his contract, he could bring an action in tort.
He might also refer to a contract too but it isn’t compulsory. He could also have referred to a contract but he need not do so.
Also, Read – https://lawplanet.in/white-v-john-warwick-co-ltd-1953/
