Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562 THE Snail IN THE Bottle CASE PDF

Preview

Summary

short summary on duty of care case...

Description

The Law of Negligence: When does one person owe another person a duty of care?

- Case: Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 (the snail in the bottle case)

Donoghue v Stevenson provides the foundation for the modern law of negligence

Facts of case

Donoghue wanted to sue Stevenson but COULD NOT because of the doctrine of privity of Contract

The question for the Court was: Where there any grounds upon which Stevenson could be held responsible for Donoghue's injuries

The court decided that manufacturers who produce products that cannot be inspected prior to use owe a DUTY OF CARE to consumers of the product

Lord Atkins made a famous statement known as " the neighbour principle"

"you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or ommissions that you can reasonably foresee would injure your neighbour "

Your neighbour is any person who is closely affected by what you do or fail to do.

The question of proximity is outlined in the neighbour principle

Donoghue took the radical step of trying to sue Stevenson anyway

He said: Therefore according to the neighbour principle, a duty of care is owed when a reasonable person could forersee that damage may occur as a result of the defendant's actions

The Law of Negligence: When does one person owe another person a duty of care?

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562

- Case: Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 (the snail in the bottle case)

THE SNAIL IN THE BOTTLE CASE

In August, 1928 Ms May Donoghue and a friend went to a café where the friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue to drink. The drink was in an opaque glass bottle so it was impossible to see the content of the bottle from the outside. Some of the ginger beer was poured over ice-cream and Donoghue consumed it. When the rest of the drink was poured, the decomposed remains of a dead snail slipped out. As a result, Ms Donoghue suffered from severe gastroenteritis and shock. One of the first cases heard after Donoghue v Stevenson was the Australian case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills, which was heard by the High Court and went on appeal to the Privy Council in England.

Dr Grant, an Adelaide medical practitioner, contracted severe dermatitis after wearing a new pair of long woollen underpants for several days. The material used in the garment contained the hidden residue of a chemical sulphide. Even though the manufacturer had sold many sets of the underwear without receiving any complaints, Grant succeeded in his claims for compensation after the court applied the neighbour principle set down in Donoghue v Stevenson....