is the ratio and is the binding precedent) Everything else in judgement = obiter dicta - e.g. legal principles; hypothetical examples (but NOT part of the actual reason for the decision) E.g. Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 (snail in the bottle) – Lord Atkin said in his obiter comments: there should be a legal principle used when establishing duty of care in negligence cases (became known as the ‘neighbour principle’) Obiter statements MAY be followed but are not binding Following: this means you
Premium Precedent Stare decisis Case law
is called obiter dictum (obiter dicta if plural). Obiter Dictum‚ supporting facts for the main reason Types Of Laws: -Private —Involves disputes between citizens contract‚ tort‚ family‚ property‚ wills -Public —Involves disputes between citizens and state crime‚ administrative‚ constitutional‚ tax‚ industrial Lecture 2 Torts: Tort Common Law 2 Areas: - Product Liability (part 3-5) - Negligent misstatements (S 18) 2.7 Manufacturers to consumers Donoghue v Stevenson‚ Levi v
Premium Contract
Judicial Precedent P1: explain the application of judicial precedent in the courts You will need to know: What is judicial precedent? The development of the system The hierarchy of the courts The difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta The difference between binding and persuasive precedent How law reports are used What is judicial precedent? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Premium Stare decisis Precedent Common law
binding part of a previous decision is the ratio decidendi (reason for the decision) and it must be followed by judges in later cases. Anything said obiter dicta (by the way) in the original case is merely persuasive because it was not strictly relevant to the matter in issue and does not have to be followed. For example: In Donoghue v Stevenson‚ the claimant suffered food poisoning after drinking from an opaque bottle of ginger beer which contained a dead‚ decomposing snail. The House of Lords
Premium Stare decisis Case law Precedent
( INTRODUCTION In a dispute between two parties‚ the court must first establish what happened. The facts are usually determined by the trial judge. Although in some countries jury may be used‚ in Malaysia‚ it was abolished in the 1980s. Once the facts are determined‚ the judge will then make the application of law to the facts to determine which party would succeed. The doctrine of judicial precedent is important because it is the ratio decidendi of a previously decided similar case‚ decided
Premium Common law
It is based on the maxim “stare decisis” which means stand by what has been decided. donoghue v Stevenson followed in grant v Australian knitting mills. The Ratio Decidendi (reasons for deciding) is the only binding part of a judge’s decision but how judges interpret this can vary thus changing the impact it can have on future decisions Other than ratio decidendi there can be other comments by judges‚The obiter dicta (things said by the way) here the judge speculate the outcome of the cases had
Premium Stare decisis Ratio decidendi Case law
defects must be hidden and unknown to the plaintiff‚ a chance of intermediate examination absolves duty of care. All 3 judges agreed that there is no liability if the purchaser has actual knowledge of the defect – Obiter. To outline the gravity of this question we can cite Donoghue v Stevenson where the ginger beer was in
Premium Tort
principle of stare decisis‚ this means that like cases should be treated alike. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular case‚ that law must be applied in all future cases containing the same material facts. For example in the case “Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)‚ The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed the duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product. This set a binding precedent which was followed in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936]. In order for the doctrine of
Premium Stare decisis Appeal Common law
tort of negligence originated with the House of Lords decision in Donoghue v Stevenson. This case was a significant keystone in the tort of negligence. It is famed because of Lord Atkins ‘neighbour principle’ in which he sets out the framework for determining the existence of a duty of care. To that end‚ negligence liability is thus based on a core test known as the ‘neighbour principal’. In the years following Donoghue v Stevenson‚ the limits of negligence have continued to expand. Lord Wilberforce
Premium Tort Negligence Injury
INTRODUCTION Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) This famous case established the civil law tort of negligence and obliged manufacturers to have a duty of care towards their customers. The events of the complaint took place in Scotland on Sunday evening on 26th August 1928‚ when Ms May Donoghue (Appellant) was given a bottle of ginger beer‚ purchased by a friend. The bottle was later discovered to contain a decomposing snail. Since the bottle was not of clear glass‚ Donoghue was not aware of the snail
Premium Duty of care Tort Negligence