been made to rule that because there was no contractual liability on the manufacturer to the Plaintiff there could be no liability in tort. This was the so- called "contractual fallacy". The fallacy provided that only parties to a contract
114 can sue in injuries arising out of the contracts in question. The "contract fallacy" was given a decent burial by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of GRANT V. AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS LTD [1936] AC 85, 101-102. The same facts may give rise to both contractual and tortious liability and it is wrong to assume that, because A is bound by a contract to B, therefore harm resulting from A's breach of that contract to C, a third party, can never give rise to liability in tort on A's part to C: READ: WINFIELD, 11 edition, page 69; WINFIELD, Province of Tort , pp. 73- 76; Greene v. Chelsea B. C. [1954] 2QB 127, 138 , per Lord Denning. Negligence and Industrial Revolution The rise of NEGLIGENCE broadly coincided with the Industrial Revolution, and was undoubtedly stimulated by the advent of machinery and the faster traffic along turnpike (gates on roads where users made to pay) and railway: the Society is charging forward!!! Untold new sources of risk and losses made their appearance, and confronted the law with problems which it was unable to solve by recourse to its inherited, archaic tort remedies. At this crucial stage of social and economic re-orientation the courts responded to the call for a new pattern of loss-adjustment by fastening on the concept of negligence. (Negligence New
