Study manual

person did damage to another wilfully and intentionally, and 
without just cause or excuse;
14
 
 
(e) Winfield cites also the Tort of 
Negligence
 as an example 
of willingness of Courts to create new Torts without the 
inhibitions of pigeon holes. Recognition of the Tort of 
Negligence
 in 1932 as a distinct Tort was not met with an 
opposition due to novelty of the Tort. Winfield has shown 
that in the case of 
Vaughan V. Menlove
15
 the Court extended 
the standard of 
"reasonable man"
 from the law of Bailments 
to the Law of Torts at large; 
 
11
.3 Comm. 1 22-23, 4. 
12
.Chapman Vs. Pickersgill, 2 Wills. 1 45, 1 46 (1 760). 
13
.Gardiner Vs. Coasdale, 2 Burr.l 905, 906 (1 760); and in Moses Vs. MacFerlan, 2 Burr. 1 005, 
1 01 1 -1 01 2 (1 760). 
14
.Skinner & Co. Vs. Shew & Co. [1 893] 1 Ch 41 3, 422. 
15
.3 Bing. N.S. 468, 4 Scott 244, 7 C&P. 525 (1 837). 

---

57 
Read the history of the Law of Bailment and its connection to the Law of Tort. 
 
(g) Winfield illustrates the development of the Tort of 
Deceit
 
in support of the General Principle on Foundations of 
Tortious liability. He argues that Deceit at first had the 
peculiar narrow signification of abuse of legal procedure. 
The concept developed through the Law of Sale in 
particular and the Law of Contract in general. Deceit did not 
appear as an independent Tort till 1789 in the case of 
Pasley Vs Freeman T.R. 51, 63.