Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine Co

[1996] AC 211

Case summary last updated at 18/01/2020 18:55 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine Co

P’s cargo was loaded onto a ship which, after inspection by a Surveying Society’s inspector, was allowed to put to sea and sank. In addition to settling with the ship-owners, they sued the inspector for negligence. HL dismissed the claim. It held that in deciding whether to impose a duty of care, it had to consider the elements of foreseeability and proximity and whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant. In this case the society undertook, for free, an expense that would otherwise have to be taken on by states and therefore it would be unfair, unjust and unreasonable to impose the duty of care on it.
Lord Steyn (with majority): He says that although there is no evidence to support a charitable society having a general immunity from prosecution, it’s public benefit should make one hesitant about imposing duties on it. Liability would expose societies to too great a risk. Furthermore, since it was the ship-owner’s who decided to use the society to comply with rules on protecting the cargo and NOT the stock-owners (who had no idea of the involvement of the society initially), it would be unfair to make the society liable to P. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>