Donoghue v Stevenson

one’s neighbour in Donoghue v Stevenson . In that case, Lord Atkin laid down general principles whereby a person would owe another a duty of care, the most important being “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour” . This principle has been refined on a number of occasions and the current approach for establishing a duty of care is typified in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman . Following Donoghue, a variety of cases

1. Importance of Donoghue v Stevenson Case The case established 3 things The case established negligence as a wrongful act for which there was a legal liability. The notion of duty of care was formed which if infringed would result in damage. The neighbour principle was established by Lord Akins namely that your neighbour is anyone who may be affected by your acts or omissions. Main points of Case (The details of this were) Mrs Donoghue drank some ginger beer in which she found the remains

Coke set precedent by ruling, “That payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater cannot be any satisfaction of the whole…” (Open University, 2014). This was used in any relevant ruling from then until the case of Foakes v Beer (1884). In Foakes v Beer, the defendant agreed to pay the instalments every six months and the claimant agreed not to take any further action. The defendant paid the money owed but not the interest so the claimant sued again on the grounds of interest. Pinnels

breach of duty by Mr. Matt. It is these three elements that distinguish negligence from carelessness. The duty of care that Scott would be required to ascertain before the courts for a successful suit were first described by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 AC 562. While presiding over the case and in a majority ruling, Lord Atkin states that a duty to use ordinary care and skill arises in circumstances where the conduct of another might put others in danger. Reasonable care must be taken

on similar cases in the future to which previous ratio decidendi applies in order to reach a final decision. Ratio decidendi forms a binding precedent which means that in future cases it has to be followed which contain the same principles. Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932 set a legal precedent still in use today. 1B) Ratio decidendi refers to the part of judgment where explanations are given regarding the reasons for a decision. It is the general grounds rom which a decision is taken. Sometimes a judge

gave her the bottle of ginger beer for her. Later, after having half of the contents, she found that bottle had a decomposing snail for which she got nervous shock. Thus, under “contract law,” Donoghue was powerless to sue the manufacturer since her friend was the main party of the contract instead of Donoghue. For that reason, the House of Lords made a decision to create new principle of law, which everybody holds a duty of care for neighbour, which entitled the House of Lords that effectively sue

Felix Frankfurter is a small, slightly-built senior citizen who loves to eat seafood, especially prawns. He believes the best prawns sold in his suburb are at the local department store known as Rooks. One Friday he arrived at the store to do his weekly shopping. He went to the seafood counter and ordered 500 grams of green prawns for his dinner with his wife that evening. He was served by , an employee, who wrapped the prawns in a packet and then gave them to him. Felix then moved on to do the rest

that a reasonable person would do, doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do. It is the failure to exercise reasonable care and skill.” (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser 2014, p. 168) In the decision of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 at

issues does this situation raise and what are the possible legal consequences? Issue 1--duty of care The tort of negligence to be constituted depend on whether the defendant violate the principle of ‘Duty 0f Care’. Because of the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1], ‘Duty 0f Care’ has been established in common law: 1. Defendant whether or not fulfill the duty of care. 2. That defendant whether or not breached that duty. 3. whether Breach the duty of care is the main reason to resulting in infringement

applies well to Danny, who neglects his duty to assure that he had engaged his hand brake. As Tim sustained injury from the accident, he may as well sought compensation from Danny. This breach of duty may as well be represented in the case of Paris v. Stepney Borough Council(1950). Mr. Paris was employed as a garage mechanist and he had lost sight to one eye during the war. In order to loosen a stiff bolt he struck it with a hammer; a piece of metal flew off and because he was not wearing goggles