Concurrent Liability CASES
In English law, concurrent liability occurs when a defendant is simultaneously liable for the same harm under multiple legal principles, typically both contract and tort.
Definition and principles
Concurrent liability allows a claimant to pursue claims arising from a single set of facts under different legal doctrines, such as breach of contract and negligence in tort, potentially maximising available remedies.
Conditions for concurrent liability
- The existence of duties in both contract and tort.
- The defendant’s actions simultaneously breach contractual obligations and general duties of care.
- Harm suffered by the claimant arises from the overlapping breaches.
Case example: Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd (1993)
In Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd, the court recognised concurrent liability, where Alfa Laval faced claims in both contract and negligence for harm caused by a defective heat exchanger. The decision highlighted that claimants could choose the legal pathway offering the most favourable remedies.
Practical implications
Concurrent liability provides strategic advantages for claimants, including longer limitation periods, differing burden of proof considerations, and varied measures of damages depending on the chosen claim.
Limitations and criticism
Concurrent liability is criticised for creating complexity and uncertainty in litigation. Courts manage this by emphasising clarity in duties owed and carefully delineating boundaries between contract and tort claims.
Home » Concurrent Liability
A newsagent hired a faulty tricycle from the defendants under a contract containing an exemption clause. He was injured and sued. The court held that the clause exempted the defendants from their strict contractual liability, but not from their parallel liability for negligence. Facts The plaintiff, a newsagent, hired a tradesman’s tricycle from the defendants for his newspaper round. The written hire agreement contained Clause 11, which stated: “Nothing in this agreement shall render the owners liable for any personal injuries to the riders of the machine hired”. While the plaintiff was riding the tricycle, the saddle tilted forward, causing
Lloyd's Names sued their managing agents for negligent mismanagement. The agents had a contract with the Names. The House of Lords held that the agents also owed a concurrent duty of care in tort, establishing the principle of concurrent liability. Facts The appellants were underwriting members of Lloyd’s, known as ‘Names’. The respondents were underwriting agents who acted as managers for various syndicates of which the Names were members. The relationship between the Names and their agents was governed by an agency agreement, creating a contractual link. The Names suffered substantial financial losses and brought actions against the agents, alleging
Facts The plaintiff, Beoco Ltd., purchased a second-hand plate heat exchanger from the first defendant, Alfa Laval Co Ltd., for use in their lard production process. Alfa Laval had previously acquired the machine from the second defendants, J.M.L. Realisations Ltd. The sale from Alfa Laval to Beoco was on an ‘as seen’ basis. During pre-contractual negotiations, Alfa Laval provided Beoco with service records for the machine which they had received from J.M.L. These records were incomplete and omitted a crucial report about a hazardous pressure test conducted in 1983 which had revealed defects. After installation, the machine exploded, causing significant
