Read: Prosser, W.L., Selected Topics of Law of Torts University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, 1953. THE FOLLOWING LECTURE IS DRAWN FROM PROSSER. THE PORTION ILLUSTRATE HOW TORT AND CONTRACT WERE FUSED. AND HOW THEY PARTED COMPANY:- "... In the beginning there was no such thing as a distinction between Contract and Tort. There were instead Forms of Action. The Forms of Action were rigidly constructed to the original writs, into which plaintiff's cause of action must be fitted if he would stay in court. Some of the early remedies, such as Trespass, Trespass Upon Case, Trover and Deceit, clearly originated in cases of what we should now call Tort. Others such as Covenant, Debt and Detinue, arose in
58 Contract situations. But the line was by no means clearly drawn. The earliest cases arising in the borderland were those of Negligence. The earliest cases arising in the borderland between Tort and Contract were those of negligence on the part of persons engaged in a trade or calling. In 1348 a ferryman who overloaded his boat and drowned the plaintiff's horse was held liable. 16 The action was On the Case, and the underlying theory seems to have been at first one of pure Tort, that the Defendant had deceived the plaintiff by falsely representing that he was skilled in his trade. Such form of liability was confined to those engaged in a Common Calling,
