Flashcards in Negligence: Duty of Care and Property Damage Cases Deck (3)
The Aliakmon (1986)
This case concerned goods damaged during ship transport. The question concerned who could sue for the property damage when goods are in transit. It was held that the buyers are not 'owners' per se of property in transit; therefore, they could not sue for damage.
One has to be the legal owner, or have a possessory title (Lord Brandon, at p. 809)
The Nicholas H (1996) [also in the 'Formulation of a Duty' deck]
In deciding whether to check if a ship if seaworthy, if you have to factor in an assumption of duty, this may lead to negative consequences (many might simply be unwilling to assume such responsibility) - see Lord Steyn, at p. 241.
Lord Lloyd made a strong dissent, believing that the facts "cry out for the imposition of a duty of care" (p. 230). Indeed, he laments the increasingly 'isolated' nature of formulating a duty of care since the 'retreat from Anns'; the incremental reasoning promoted by Caparo, etc. has resulted in this area of tort having no general principles at all (p. 230).