Law of Torts: Case Study #1 Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

Before analyzing the principles of negligance, here's some simple definition to some legal words to make it easier to understand :

1.Negligance- action taked by the defendent that causes foreseeable danger or injury to another.

2.Duty of care- a moral or legal obligation to ensure the safety or well-being of others.

3.Precedent- an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Fact of the case:

Mrs Donoghue drank a bottle of ginger beer given by her friend. A decomposing remain of a snail was discovered inside the bottle. She fell ill and was diagonsed with gastroenterities. A legal action was then taken against Mr David Stevenson, the manufacturer of ginger beer.

This case established the modern concept of negligance in the English Law.

Principles: (important elements from this case)

1. Negligance

- House of Lords affirmed that negligance is a tort.(Negligance was accepted as a separate tort in its right.)

-A plantiff can take civil action against the respondant if the respondant's negligance causes the plantiff injury or loss property. 

-Previously, the plantiff had to demonstrate contractual agreement to prove negligance, such as sale of an item or an agreement to provide a service.(Lack of privity of contract did not prevent the claimant from claiming.)-Mrs.Donoghue did not purchased the drink, unable to prove the contractual agreement with Mr.Stevenson.

-Yet, Lord Atkin's judgement established that Stevenson was still responsible for the integrity of the product. 

2. Duty of care

-Manufacturer owes duty of care towards the consumers or users of their products not to cause harm to them.

-According to Lord Atkin's ratio decendi " a manufacturer of product....which he sells....to reach the ultimate consumer in from in which they left them...owes a duty to the consumer to take resonable care."

(Elements to prove the negligance act: 1. Duty of care-owned by the defendent to the plantiff. 2.Breach-Defendent breach the duty of care by failing below the appropriate standard of care. 3.Causation-The breach of duty of care must be the legal cause of the harms suffered by the plantiff. 4.Damage- Caused by the defendent's breach was not too remote a consequences of the breach.)

3. Neighbour principle

-In Donoghue's case, she did not puchased the beer but received it as a gift; she was considered as a 'neighbour' rather than a party to the contract.

-Lord Atkin's neighbour principle :"You must take resonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can resonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour?....persons who are so closely  and directly affected by my act that i ought resonably to have them in my contemplation as being affected so when i am directing my mind to the acts or omissions in question."

References:

http://lawgovpol.com/case-study-donoghue-v-stevenson-1932/

https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/proving-fault-what-is-negligence.html

https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/tort-law/negligence/duty-of-care/lecture.php

https://www.mccormickmurphy.com/diy/liability/negligence/

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=68381&section=1.1