DUTY OF CARE 3 3.0 SUMMARY OF CASE “DONOGHUE V STEVENSON” 3 3.1 ACTIONS TAKEN BY DONOGHUE 4 3.2 THE RESPONSE OF MR. STEVENSON 5 4.0 THE IMPLICATION OF CASE 5 5.0 THE JUDGEMENT 6 6.0 THE CONCLUSION 7 7.0 REFERENCES 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION Introduction to students the Lord Atkin’s concept of general duty of care‚ summary of the case “Donoghue v Stevenson” and its implication. It will also briefly explain on
Premium Duty of care Tort Law
Suman Siva Prof. Jeong Chun Phuoc 012014111647 Assignment 2 – Weekly Case Law Critique WEEK 2 CASE LAW ON DONOGHUE V STEVENSON (1932) Summary On August 26th 1928‚ Donoghue (plaintiff) and a friend were at a case in Glasgow‚ Scotland. Her friend ordered / purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The bottle was in an opaque bottle (dark glass material) as Donoghue was not aware of the contents. After‚ Donoghue drank some and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger
Premium Law Duty of care Tort
Journey Through the Tunnel "America is much more than a geographical fact. It is a political and moral fact - the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom‚ responsible government‚ and human equality" - Adlai Stevenson I can still remember that feeling when my mother and father had told me we were moving to America‚ part of me felt as if time had stopped and the other part felt excited to start a new beginning . I couldn’t decide whether this life-changing
Premium
Question 6‚ April 2006: Solution to fe1 question Bell Computers could attach liability to either Chemical Supply or Industrial Estates under the tort of Rylands v Fletcher. Chemical Supply’s Liability Rylands v Fletcher established that a person who “for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes‚ must keep it in at his peril‚ and if he does not do so ‚ is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
Case analysis: Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11; [2009] AC 874; AER 205 The claimant of this case was the widow and daughter of Mr Drummond. They brought a claim against the council for damages in negligence‚ the essential legal complaint was that the local authority had failed to warn the deceased about the meeting before‚ and that they acted in a way that was incompatible with his right to life‚ under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Session
Premium Duty of care Tort Law
Assignment #1 Case Study: Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County Joseph Boltersdorf Dr. Patricia Drain Business Employment Law January 24‚ 2011 1. What was the legal issue in this case? In the opinion of Judge Richard C. Bosson‚ the legal issue in this case was to‚ “…decide whether an employer owes prospective employers and foreseeable third persons a duty of reasonable care not to misrepresent material facts in the course of making an employment recommendation
Premium Employment Tort Pleading
taken into the Final Examination. 1. 2. 3 Commonwealth v State of Tasmania (1983) 46 ALR 625 Federal and State powers Lee v Knapp [1967] 2 QB 442 “Stop after accident” – golden rule Smith v Hughes [1960] 2 All ER 859 “in the street” – mischief rule 4. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256 Several contract law principles 5. Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 Supply of information is not an offer 6. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist (Southern) Ltd. [1953] 1 QB 401 Shop
Premium Tort Contract Invitation to treat
hand‚ the courts draw a line to mark out the bounds of duty to protect the interests of and compensate those who have suffered a loss and injury and this is also one of the major aims of tort law. In Donoghue v. Stevenson‚ the courts judged the manufacturer of the ginger beer‚ David Stevenson of Paisley owned a duty of care to Mrs Donoghue even though there was no contract between them. In Lord Aitkin’s “neighbour” principle‚ liability should be found as long as someone failed to “take reasonable
Premium Tort Plaintiff Duty of care
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
Neighbor Principle The claim on tort of negligence is based on three elements‚ which are duty of care‚ breach of duty and the breach resulted in Damage. The case of Donoghue v Stevenson‚ regarding the snail in the bottle of ginger beer‚ reached the House of Lord in 1932. Lord Atkin formulated a general principle from it to govern the existence of a duty of care and this was the neighbor principle. In order for a duty of care owed there must be reasonable foresight of harm to persons whom‚ it is
Premium Duty of care Tort Negligence