Gorris v. Scott
Rule established
Where a statute is enacted for a specific purpose (preventing spread of disease), breach of that statute does not give a cause of action for a loss (sheep washed overboard) unrelated to the mischief the statute was designed to prevent.
Facts
- Plaintiff's sheep were being transported by defendant's vessel
- Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act required animals to be kept in pens during sea transport
- Defendant failed to provide pens
- Sheep were washed overboard in a storm
Issue
- Whether breach of a statute designed to prevent disease gives a cause of action for a different type of loss (physical loss overboard).
Held
- The statutory duty existed to prevent spread of contagious diseases, not to secure animals against the sea
- The loss suffered was outside the scope of the statutory purpose
- Claim dismissed
Ratio Decidendi
A breach of statutory duty only gives rise to civil liability where the damage suffered is of the kind the statute was designed to prevent. The mischief rule defines the boundaries of statutory protection.
How to use it in an exam
- Demonstrates limits of statutory purpose
- Shows the Mischief Rule operates as both a sword (Smith v. Hughes) and a shield (Gorris v. Scott)
- Key line: "In Gorris v. Scott (1874), the court held that breach of a statute enacted to prevent disease did not give a remedy for sheep lost overboard, since the loss was outside the mischief the statute aimed to prevent."
Source
Source: (1874) LR 9 Ex 125
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Interpretation of StatutesMischief RuleMischief Rule as shield: loss must fall within statutory purpose