Gorris v Scott (1874) LR 9 Ex 125
The scope of a statutory duty to prevent damages or losses of a certain kind.
Facts
A ship owner, the defendant, had contracted to carry a number of sheep from a foreign port to England. Some of the sheep were washed overboard and lost. The claimants alleged that the loss of the sheep was due to the ship owner’s neglect to comply with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act 1869, of which one order specified that sheep from foreign ports ought to be divided into pens of specific dimensions and designates the floorings of such pens.
Issues
The question arose as to whether the ship owner’s failure to comply with the order under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act 1869 allowed the claimants to recover damages for the loss of some sheep overboard.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that, in the case of a statutory duty giving rise to damages, the scope of the duty is to be deduced in accordance with the object and context of the statute. Accordingly, a person cannot claim for losses that fall outside the scope of that which the statute intends to protect. The purpose of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act 1869, as deduced by the construction of the language and context of the statute, was to prevent the spread of contagious diseases amongst animals. Although the ship owner neglected to comply with the order concerning the storage of the sheep in a certain manner under the 1869 Act, the sheep were lost at sea and the damage sustained was unrelated to contagious diseases. Thus, the claimants could not recover for the loss of the sheep on this basis. The court assumed the alleged breach had caused the loss when deciding the defendant’s objection to the claim. No other negligence had been alleged.
Source: Court of Exchequer report, 22 April 1874, pp 125–131.
