Lecture 2.2 The Neighbour Principle PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture 2.2 The Neighbour Principle...

Description

The Neighbour Principle    

No all-encompassing duty of care to the whole world in all circumstances "Control device" - determine who and in what circumstances a claim can be bought Defendant must be in a relationship with the claimant where careless conduct carries legal consequences Duty of care owed in respect to certain harm and injury suffered  Bodily injury but not economic loss

"The Neighbour Principle" in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] Before Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] - there was no test to establish duty of care  Heaven v Pender [1883] failed Facts:       

Friend of Ms. Donoghue purchased ginger beer in a dark bottle and ice cream Poured the beer over the ice cream and drank some Poured the remaining beer over the ice cream Saw a decomposed snail at the bottom of the beer Claimed to have suffered illness Sued the manufacturer in the Tort of Negligence The House of Lords agreed (3:2)



A duty of care was owed by the manufacturer to the claimant

Held:

The Neighbour Principle:  Must not injure your neighbour  Must avoid acts/ omissions which can be reasonably foreseen as to causing injury to neighbour  Neighbour is a person closely or directly affected by the defendant's act - ought to have reasonably had in contemplation 

2 key principles in The Neighbour Principle: i. Reasonably foreseeability of harm - objective  What a reasonable person in the circumstances would have foreseen  Reasonable manufacturer in the position of Stevenson would have foreseen that if he allowed contaminants to enter bottles of ginger beer, the bottles would have been consumed by the end consumer ii.

Proximity

Example:    

Importance: 

Driving 80mph in 25mph Reasonable driver ought to foresee that if they had to continue driving at that speed, they would cause physical injury to other road users/ pedestrians/ passengers Objectively: Physical Injury is reasonably foreseeable Close physical proximity

The rule of "Privacy Fallacy" in Winterbottom v Wright [1842] ended  Able to recover losses sustained in the absence of a contract

  

Lord Atkin created a separate Tort of Negligence Lord Atkin developed the Neighbour Principle for when the duty of care exists Manufacturers owe a duty of care to the end users of their products  Not to cause reasonably foreseeable harm  New duty of care is established between manufacturer and consumers...