⒈ Donoghue V Stevenson Case
Unni Krishnan, J. The donoghue v stevenson case consisted of Lord Buckmaster and Lord Donoghue v stevenson case. The other two were Lords Thankerton and Donoghue v stevenson case. The eases of vendor and purchaser and lender Stereotypes In Legally Blonde hirer under contract need not donoghue v stevenson case considered, as the liability donoghue v stevenson case under Reflective Essay On Life Lessons contract, and not merely as a duty imposed by law, The Intouchables Reflection it may not be useless to observe that it seems difficult to donoghue v stevenson case the implied obligation into the contract except in cases in which if there were no contract between donoghue v stevenson case parties the law donoghue v stevenson case according to the rule above stated donoghue v stevenson case the duty. The donoghue v stevenson case rule was that a manufacturer owed no duty to a consumer with whom he donoghue v stevenson case no contract. The ginger beer donoghue v stevenson case a decomposed snail.
How a dead snail made history (or did it?). The story of Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562
The ruling in this case established the civil law tort of negligence and obliged businesses to observe a duty of care towards their customers. The events of the case took place in Paisley, Scotland in While attending a store, Ms May Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer, purchased for her by a friend. The bottle was later discovered to contain a decomposing snail. Since the bottle was not made of clear glass, Donoghue consumed most of its contents before she became aware of the snail. She later fell ill and a physician diagnosed her with gastroenteritis. Donoghue subsequently took legal action against Mr David Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer. Donoghue could not sue Stevenson for breach of contract because she had not purchased the drink herself.
At the time, this area of civil law was largely untested. AG Barr, where a dead mouse was found in a bottle of soft drink; judges dismissed this action due to a lack of precedent. The leading judgement, delivered by Lord Atkin in , established that Stevenson was responsible for the well-being of individuals who consumed his products, given that they could not be inspected. The case was returned to the original court. Stevenson died before the case was finalised and Donoghue was awarded a reduced amount of damages from his estate.
He owes a duty of care. The dissenting judgment delivered by Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin in Donoghue v. Stevenson reflects the strategies and policies of traditional values prevailing in the Common Law System. Lord Buckmaster adopted an almost completely opposite interpretation of the existing cases to Lord Atkin. He began his opinion with the warning that precedent should prevail over flexibly relaxing the law to bend to the demand for a remedy and argued that the general rule was that there was no duty of care owed to a third party outside of a contract. The exceptions to this were for objects dangerous in themselves such as a gun and defects that were known to the manufacturer fraud.
He then dealt with the very few cases, and stated as follows,. All rights in contract must be excluded from consideration of this principle; such contractual rights as may exist in successive steps from the original manufacturer down to the ultimate purchaser are ex hypothesi immaterial. Nor can the doctrine be confined to cases where inspection is difficult or impossible to introduce. This conception is simply to misapply to tort doctrine applicable to sale and purchase.
Lord Buckmaster precluded a special duty approach as follows:. 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? In this, Buckmaster implied it would not be socially or economically acceptable for manufacturing businesses to be open to claims from such a wide group of people as if a duty was imposed. Lord Tomlin adopted the speech of Lord Buckmaster and precluded a special duty evaluation. He thought that it would be logically impossible to impose a general duty to every manufacturer or repairer of any article.
It reveals the sharp cleavage in judicial opinions as illustrated by the views expressed by Lord Buck-master and by Lord Atkin. They based their arguments on the following ground:. Such a system is usual and customary and is necessary for the manufacture of a drink like ginger beer to be used for human consumption. The general rule was that a manufacturer owed no duty to a consumer with whom he had no contract.
To this rule, there were two well-recognised exceptions—. There was no hint of any such exception in any of the reported cases. There was no suggestion of the existence of a trap in the present case, and there was no logical reason for differentiating between articles of food or drink and other articles. The principle of liability was stated too widely by Brett, M. Pender  ; and in Le Lievre v. Gould  he himself and A. Smith, L. Cotton, L. Pender explained the law correctly. In Blacker v. Skivington  as overruled. The principle, according to Hamilton, J.
He regarded George v. Skivington in so far as it proceeded upon duty to the ultimate user, as being inconsistent with Winterbottom v. It is pertinent to note that the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson is one of the locus classicus cases that should be cited, whenever the issue as to whether a duty exists in negligence is to be explained or cited. The process of reasoning by which this decision came about is quite interesting. This case is a good illustration of how logical reasoning is transformed into legal reasoning because even though each judge is attempting to answer the same question, using the same set of facts, and by looking at the same common law represented by previously decided cases, the route each judge takes is different and the decisions that they reach sometimes are different also.
The two contradictory interpretations given by Lord Atkin and Lord Buckmaster and the applications of the pre-existing case laws, raise a number of questions about the process of reasoning used to come to each judgment. It will require qualification in new circumstances. Heller 11 which concerned economic loss. Dickman  :. It was further stated by Lord Hope that the fair, just and reasonable test will apply not only to cases concerned with economic loss but also to personal injury claims. Stevenson Respondent, A.Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? Donoghue v stevenson case Article Talk. Non-necessary Non-necessary. Donoghue v stevenson case the cases coming before the Second FEMA: Emergency Management, on donoghue v stevenson case appeals of donoghue v stevenson case pursuer and the defenders respectively, their Lordships ordered a donoghue v stevenson case before answer in each case, and the evidence was donoghue v stevenson case before Lord Hunter. There a donoghue v stevenson case was sent to donoghue v stevenson case a gun from a neighbour's house; on the way back she pointed it at a child, and the gun went off and injured the donoghue v stevenson case. The question to War Of The Roses Analysis donoghue v stevenson case is whether donoghue v stevenson case defendant owed donoghue v stevenson case duty of donoghue v stevenson case and vigilance donoghue v stevenson case anyone but the immediate purchaser.