Contract Negligence

It must always be a question of circumstances whether the carelessness amounts to negligence, and whether the injury is not too remote from the carelessness.

Thus where a manufacturer had parted with his product and it has passed into other hands, it may well be exposed to vicissitudes which may render it defective or noxious, and the manufacturer cannot be held liable. It may be a good general rule to regard responsibility as ceasing when control ceases.

It is so also where between the manufacturer and the user there is interposed a party who has the means and opportunity of examining the manufacturer’s product before he reissues it to the actual user.

But where, as in present case, the article of consumption is so prepared as to be intended to reach the consumer in the condition in which it leaves the manufacturer, and the manufacturer takes step to ensure this by sealing or otherwise closing the container, so that the contents cannot be tampered with, his control remains effective until the article reaches the control and container is opened by him.

The fact that there is contractual relationship between the parties which may give rise to an action for breach of contract does not exclude the existence of a right of action founded on negligence as between the same parties independently of the contract though arising out of the relationship in fact brought about by the contract.

On this the best illustration is the right of the injured railway passenger to sue the railway company either for the breach of the contract of safe carriage or for negligence in carrying him.

And there is no reason why the same set of facts should not give one person a right of action in contract and another person a right of action in tort.


The Author "Micheal Robb" is an expert Legal adviser who owns and runs a site on Law,Rules and Regulations:
Law
Pigeonhole principle
The system administrator has set policies to prevent this installation