LEGAL PRINCIPLE: MARITIME LAW – Bailment – Liability in Tort Survives Abandonment of Contractual Claim
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A plaintiff may abandon a claim for breach of contract and rely on a claim in negligence in bailment; such course of action is within legal rights and does not destroy the mainstay of the case.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Broadline Enterprises Ltd. v. Monterey Maritime Corporation & Anor (1995) NLC-1661989(SC) at p. 18; Paras C–D.
"When, therefore, the appellant abandoned its claim on breach of contract and stated it was relying on its claim in negligence as pleaded in paragraph 14 of the amended Statement of Claim, it would seem to me that it was acting well within its legal rights. Nor did such course of action destroy the main stay of the appellant's case as pleaded and presented or at all as both courts below, with respect, erroneously concluded."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party may abandon a contractual claim and pursue a tort claim arising from the same facts. The choice of cause of action is the plaintiff’s prerogative. The principle applies to bailment and other relationships. The court cannot force the plaintiff to proceed on a claim they have abandoned. The rule promotes party autonomy. The defendant may still defend the tort claim. The plaintiff must have pleaded the alternative claim. The principle prevents the court from dismissing a case solely because the plaintiff abandoned one cause of action.