Groves v Wimborne [1898] 2 QB 402
Judgement for the case Groves v Wimborne
Table Of Contents
Defendant owned a factory and breached his statutory duty on fencing around dangerous machinery, as a result of which Plaintiff was injured.
Plaintiff sued and CA held that this breach of statutory duty (NB NOT breach of merely general tortious duty of care) did give a cause of action.
Rigby LJ
Whether an act is intended to grant a private action depends on taking a “purview” of the whole act.
In this case, the only penalty proscribed by the act was a small fine and “the legislature cannot have seriously intended that whether the workman suffered death or mutilation the liability of the master should never exceed” this small fine.
-
He comes to this conclusion because:
The duty was absolute, and couldn’t be delegated; and
The harm caused by a breach of duty could far exceed the fine in terms of value.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on Groves v Wimborne
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.