Results that came from the eventually blurred distinction between writ of trespass and case.
(from one of the review books...)
Plaintiff's lawyers increasingly sought to frame the claims of certain clients as claims for trespass on the case.
- Because a case could be thrown out if they chose the wrong writ.
Plaintiff is run down by defendant's horse drawn carriage. Lawyer brings case as a writ of trespass because of the direct application of force. BUT Defendant says the horse got away from him and ran off on his own with the carriage. Judge says the case should have been brought under the case writ because the action was not a direct application of force by the defendant, but indirect. Case is thrown out.
More cases kept coming in under the writ case to avoid this.
Eventually writ of trespass went away and everything went under the case writ.
World of torts became divided between intent and negligence of the wrongdoer. No longer looking at direct vs. indirect.