This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: an affirmative course of conduct that resulted in a something other than a physical injury. B. Lack of privity of contract was seen historically as a bar to the imposition of a duty. See Winterbottom, p 55. Explanations for rule include 1. Protect contractual relationships between employers/businesses and other entities. 2. Concern with too broad a scope of liability for those who contract with others by limiting rights of third parties. 3. Overburdening courts with lawsuits. C. Exception to privity limitation: imminently dangerous products, see Thomas, p 57. 1. Note tension that arose in case law leading up to MacPherson, discussed on pages 58-59. D. MacPherson, p 59, did away with privity limitation in most instances under US tort law. 1. Problem with applying the Thomas precedent. 2. Expansion of Thomas precedent to items “negligently made.” What is the scope of the duty created by MacPherson? 3. Dissent, p 63: the Winterbottom precedent....
View Full Document
- Spring '09
- Common Law, d. MacPherson, PROFESSOR GHOSH I., Duty Element A., privity limitation