the emerging industrial society. A new remedy: Negligence came into being. It has been observed that the tort of negligence has since the middle of last century been regarded by judges as the legitimate mode of adjusting losses between persons whose activities entail risk of injury on the one hand, and those who fall victim to them on the other. The Common law had, in the feudal period of its development, paid particular attention to protection of interests in land, the predominant economic asset. This was achieved through the writ of trespass: This observation is contained at para 15.3.1, page 775, Harold Luntz and David Hambly, Torts: Cases and Commentary, Butterworths, Sydney, 1992. Before 1932, the only serious attempt by judge to formulate a general principle of law to take care of new danger (in terms of a duty to take care) was that of BRETT, MR (as he then was) in the case of HEAVEN v. PENDER (1883) 11 QBD 503, 509, and this formulation was expressly dissented from by COTTON and BOWEN, LJJ, his two brethren in the Court of Appeal. Before 1932 it was not finally settled whether Negligence was an INDEPENDENT TORT or it was A CONDITION OF LIABILITY in certain defined relationships and situations. Emergence of the Tort of Negligence as an independent Tort was a reflection of deep seated changes taking place in the British society. The society was increasingly becoming mechanised and industrialised. New dangers and novel
103 accidents were increasing. Law of Tort, hitherto catering for the interests of the Feudal economy (and dominated by intentional torts) had to respond accordingly. Negligence was born under the prevailing shift of the economy
