판결 이유
A duty of care in tort may exist concurrently with contractual obligations. Where a person assumes responsibility for providing professional services and another relies on that assumption of responsibility, a tortious duty of care arises regardless of any contractual framework.
사실관계
Lloyd's Names suffered financial losses and sued their managing agents in both contract and tort. Some Names had no direct contractual relationship with the managing agents (indirect Names). The agents argued that contract, where it existed, excluded concurrent tortious liability.
판결 요약
Lord Goff held that concurrent liability in contract and tort was available. The principle of assumption of responsibility from Hedley Byrne v Heller applied. Both direct and indirect Names could sue in tort based on the agents' assumption of responsibility for managing their affairs with reasonable care.
주요 인용문
"An assumption of responsibility coupled with the concomitant reliance may give rise to a tortious duty of care irrespective of whether there is a contractual relationship between the parties."
— Lord Goff
후속 처리
Leading authority on concurrent liability in contract and tort, and the assumption of responsibility principle.