NOTES OF CASES
| Date | 01 March 1939 |
| Published date | 01 March 1939 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1938.tb00419.x |
310
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW March,
1939
NOTES
OF
CASES
Breach
of
ContFscGBFssch
of
Statutory
Duty-NegIigence
The
case
of
Read and aBother
v.
Croydon Corporation
(1938),
55
T.L.R.
212,
raises issues of considerable legal and of transcendent public impor-
tance.
It
is
rare
for the circumstances giving rise
to
an action
to
have
effects
as
far-reaching and, ultimately, as beneficial
as
in this case.
The action was a test case arisiig out of the serious water-borne typhoid
epidemic in Croydon in November,
1937,
caused by the unknowing intro-
duction of a typhoid carrier into a Corporation well
at
a time when the
chlorinating and filtering apparatus had
been
disconnected. When the case
was
heard, less than a year after the outbreak, the expert witnesses
on
both sides deposed
to
the fact that,
@st
hoc
proptcr
hoc,
water-engineering
practice throughout the country had undergone a root-and-branch change.
So
much
so
that counsel for the defendants urged that the judge should
avoid a possible temptation to
test
the Corporation’s conduct
by
the
standards prevailing after the epidemic. Nevertheless,
Mr.
Justice Stable
had no hesitation in finding that the Corporation, according
to
current
practice prior
to
the outbreak, had been negligent in the steps taken
to
supply water
to
the consumers, and
it
was
upon
this
postulate that he
considered the question
of
legal responsibility.
The plaintiffs in the action were a father and daughter of whom the
daughter, who had contracted typhoid through drinking water supplied
to her father’s household, claimed general damages, and the father claimed
the medical and other expenses
to
which he had been put by reason of
the girl’s illness.
The father based
his
claim upon five causes of action,
viz-
(I)
Breach of contract for the sale of goods, with a warranty imported
by
s.
14
of the Sale of
Goods
Act. or alternatively;
(2)
breach of contract for the rendering of services with a similar war-
ranty
(upon the authority of
G.
H.
Myers
&
Co.
v.
Brent Cross Service Co.,
[I9341
I
K.B.
46)
;
(3)
breach of statutory duty;
(4)
common law negligence
;
(5)
nuisance.
The daughter relied upon the last three only of these legal bases
as
she
was
not a ratepayer and had no contractual relationship with the under-
taker. No point was made that,
as
was
suggested by Lord Justice Slesser
in
his
judgment
in
the case of
Barnes
v.
Irwell Valley Water Board,
[1938]
2
All
E.R.
650,
the daughter might enjoy a contractual claim as being a
person within the contemplation of the undertakers at the time when they
agreed
to
furnish a supply of water and
this
novel doctrine still remains
to
be determined by the courts.
So
far
as
the allegation of nuisance
was
concerned,
this
was abandoned
by the plaintiffs at an early stage of the case and was never argued.
It
seems clear that the injury complained of
was
not sufficiently proximate
to the enjoyment
of
the plaintiffs’ land
to
permit success on
this
ground.
With regard
to
the father’s
claim
in
contract,
his
Lordship
ruled
that
th
plaint8 had failed
to
prove that there
was
a contract giving rise to
warranty, either under the Sale
of
Goods
Act or for
seMces.
The learne
judge found
that
the corporation
was
under a statutory obligatio
To continue reading
Request your trial