Cite as: SC (HL) 31,  UKHL 3,  UKHL ,  AC Donoghue v Stevenson  UKHL (26 May ). Donoghue v Stevenson  AC negligence, duty of care, neighbour test, tort law. Donoghue v Stevenson . Facts. Donoghue’s friend purchased her a bottle of ginger beer; The bottle contained the decomposing remains.
|Published (Last):||28 February 2009|
|PDF File Size:||16.66 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.1 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Lord Atkin used the concept of legal neighbours in an address to the University of Birmingham ‘s Holdsworth Club on 9 Mayin which he commented that “the man who swears unto his neighbour donognue disappointeth him not is a person commended by the law of morality, and the Law enforces that by an action for breach of contract”. At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances.
This page covers The Facts The Decision: The friend brought her a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
Injuries resulting from defective products were normally claimed on the basis of a contract of sale between the seller and the consumer. The Not so Golden Anniversary”. In separate hearings in Glasgow and Greenock Sheriff Court respectively, Orbine was successful in claiming compensation while the Mullens were not. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached, because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product’s safety would lead to harm to consumers.
Previously, the plaintiff had to demonstrate some contractual arrangement for negligence to be proven, such as the sale of an item or an agreement to provide a service.
The answer seems to be — persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. The categories of negligence are never closed”. Brexit sparks job security fears.
In precedent, there was an obiter suggestion by Lord Esher in Heaven v Pender that “whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that dnooghue one of ordinary sense You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Supreme Court rules on duty of care. Retrieved 8 September In his judgment, delivered on the donighue day, he held that, as a general principle, there should be liability for negligent preparation of food.
The Principles of the Law of Restitution. Archived stevensoh the original on 14 April After an adjournmentMinghella was added as a defender on 5 June; however, the claim against him was abandoned on 19 November, likely due to his lack of contractual relationship with Donoghue Donoghue’s friend had purchased the ginger beer and his inability to examine the contents of the dark glass bottle.
While he agreed with Lord 19332 that the duty of care a manufacturer owed to its consumers was the same regardless of the product they produced, he held that no general duty of care existed and that the fact the product was in a sealed container made no difference dohoghue the finding of a such duty. Home Office was the culmination of a movement from duties of care being found in specific circumstances to using the neighbour principle as a general duty of care.
Donoghue v Stevenson  AC , HL | Croner-i
The York Nursery death: Skip to main content. Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle, that people must take reasonable care not to injure others who could foreseeably be affected by their action or inaction, was a response to a question a lawyer posed. He supported this broad test by citing Heaven v Pender  and rejected the cases in favour of a narrower interpretation of a duty of care with the example of negligently poisoned food, for which there had been no claim against the manufacturer.
D suffered injury when she drank the contents of a bottle of ginger beer which contained a decomposed snail. Content on this page may not be republished or distributed without permission. The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in [mind] when I am [considering these] acts or omissions. She continued to work as a shop assistant.
Donoghue had moved to Maitland Street with her son, Henry, around February ; he moved out when he married inafter which she moved to Jamieson Street. Firefighters and police officers: Text and Materials 4 ed.
Removal of PIP breast implants.
Donoghue v Stevenson 
Donoghue v Stevenson Digital Resources. Retrieved 26 September Last reviewed 23 March Stevensonn the ruling in MullenLeechman issued a writ on Donoghue’s behalf against Stevenson on dknoghue April He therefore found that Donoghue had a cause of action and commented that he was “happy to think that in The absence of authority shows that no such duty [to Dorset Yacht Company] now exists.
The manufacturer was sued in negligence and the court held that manufacturers could owe their ultimate consumers a duty of care in limited circumstances. House of Lords transcript.
Tainted food when offered for sale is, in my opinion, amongst the most subtly potent of ‘dangerous goods’, and to stevenon in or prepare such food is highly relevant to infer a duty.