dangerous, but which requires, but which requires an act to be done, ie., to be loaded, in order to make it so, had been simply delivered by the Defendant, without any contract or representation on his part, to the Plaintiff, no action would have been maintained for any subsequent damage which the Plaintiff might have sustained by the use of it. Though LANGRIDGE V. LEVY was not a decision on negligence, it is relevant because: (i) Counsel in formulating the argument about duty, deduced it almost from older (embryonic Negligence) cases of the "common calling" and bailment. (ii) Counsel gave to "duty" a novel breadth of meaning
111 which the court found quite unacceptable. (iii) LANGRIDGE V. LEVY was often cited in later cases which were directly on "duty" in the tort of negligence. Another land mark was the case of WITNERBOTTOM V. WRIGHT 10 M & W 109. It was like Langridge v. Levy an Exchequer case. The action was against the Defendant, who had, under contract, supplied X with a defective mail-coach and the declaration alleged that the Plaintiff: "so improperly and negligently conducted himself, and so utterly disregarded his aforesaid contract" that the Plaintiff, the driver of the coach, was injured. It was held that the declaration was bad because the Plaintiff's claim was based on contract to which he was no party. Winterbottom's case is important because: There is a contract between A & B. C is suing A because he has been injured. C has alleged a duty towards himself on
