Donoghue v Stevenson Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Case summary comparing the judgments as required for foundations of law class activity...

Description

READING A CASE… HOW DO JUDGES USE PRECEDENT? Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (pages 562-600) – also known as “snail in the bottle” Judges: Lord Buckmaster (dissenting), Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin (dissenting), Lord Thankerton and Lord MacMillan The material facts: A product in an opaque packaging was purchased for the appellant. A foreign object was discovered during consumption. The appellant suffered harm as a result. The product was manufactured by the respondent. The legal issue: is the manufacturer of a product (i.e. ginger beer) under liability/duty of care to consumers? Even though no contractual relationship is present? 1. Did Donoghue have a cause of action? 2. Did the manufacturer owe Donoghue a duty of care? COMPARE THE USE OF PRECEDENT. How did Lords Buckmaster and Atkin each treat the cases they were presented with? Fill in the table below to get you started… …did they apply/approve OR overrule/disapprove OR distinguish? Precedent

Lord Buckmaster Apply

Distinguished

“An authority that is closely applicable” (568) – regarding negligence in construction of a carriage and injuries to a ‘stranger’

“no duty was alleged other than the duty arising out of contract…the wrong arose merely out of breach of contract and that only a party to the contract could sue” (589) (dangerous persay)

“this case seems to me to show that the manufacturer of any article is not liable to a third party injured by negligence”

Winterbottom v Wright

George v Skivington Heaven v Pender

Lord Atkin

Alderson B: “the only safe rule is to confine the right to recover to those who enter into the contract; if we go one step beyond that, there is no reason why we should not go fifty”

“there are dicta by lord Abinger which are too wide as to an action of negligence being confined to cases which breach of a public duty” (589) Breaches are not the same

Disapprove

Apply/supports

“nearest to the present” – sale of a noxious hair wash and a claim made by a person who had not bought it but suffered from its use based on negligence was allowed (570)

“A direct authority” (584)

“I do not propose to follow the fortunes of…few cases can have lived so dangerously and lives so long.”

Kelly C.B.: “Unquestionably there was such a duty towards the purchaser, and it extends in my judgement to the person for whose use the vendor knew the compound was purchased”

Distinguished

Apply

“the case has no bearing upon the present question” (575)

“This sufficiently states the truth… proximity to extend to such close and direct relations that the act complained of directly affects a person whom the person alleged to be bound to take care would know would be directly affect by his careless act” (581)

A.L. Smith LJ: “a duty to take cue care did arise when the person or property of one was in such proximity to the person or property of another that if due care was not taken damage might be done”

“There will be cases where it will be difficult to determine whether the

Macpherson v Buick Motor Co (United states, New York Court of Appeals)

“it is often cited to support all kinds of untenable propositions”

contemplated relationship is so close that the duty arises. But in the class of case now before the court I cannot conceive any difficulty to arise” (582)

Distinguished

“I must not in this long judgement do more than refer to the illuminating judgement of Cardoze J.” (598)

“The learning judge appears to base his judgement on the view that a motor-car might reasonably be regarded as a dangerous article…the authorities are against the appellant’s contention” (577)

“It might be that the course of business, by giving opportunities of examination to the immediate purchaser or otherwise, prevented the relation between manufacturer and the user of the car being so close as to create a duty” (599)

Outline Lord Atkin’s reasoning for his decision: “with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer’s like or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care” (599) “A proposition which no one in Scotland or England who was not a lawyer would for one moment doubt” “I think that this appeal should be allowed” (599) Outline Lord Buckmaster’s reasoning for his decision: “the authorities are against the appellant’s contentions and apart from authority it is difficult to see how any common law proposition can be formulated to support her claim” (577) “There can be no special duty attaching to the manufacture of food apart from that implied by contract or imposed by statute. If such a duty exists, it seems to me it must cover the construction of every article, and I cannot see any reason why it should not apply to the construction of a house. If one step, why not fifty?” “With the exception of George, no case directly involving the principle has ever succeeded in the Courts” (578) Agrees with the judgement of Lord Anderson in Mullen v Barr “it would seem little short of outrageous to make them responsible to members of the public for the condition of the contents of every bottle which issues from their works” “I am of the opinion this appeal should be dismissed” (578)

The ratio: (at 599) and neighbour principle (obiter until the 1960s) “The manufacturer of an article of food, medicine or the like, sold to a distributer in circumstances which prevent the distributor and ultimate purchaser/consumer from discovering by inspection any defect, is under a legal duty to the ultimate purchaser/consumer to take reasonable care that the article is free from defect likely to cause injury to health” (562 – headnote)

Amanuf act ur erwhosel l spr oduct si nsuchaf or m ast oshowhei nt endst hem t or eacht heul t i mat econsumeri n t hef or mi nwhi cht heyl ef thi m,wi t hnor easonabl epossi bi l i t yofi nt er medi at eexami nat i on,andwi t ht he knowl edget hatt heabsenceofr easonabl ecar ei nt hepr epar at i onandput t i ngupoft hepr oduct swi l lr esul ti n i nj ur yt ot heconsumer ' sl i f eorpr oper t yowesadut yt ot heconsumert ot aket hatr easonabl ecar e,andanact i on byt heul t i mat econsumerwi l ll i eagai nstt hemanuf act ur er ....