#Donoghue v Stevenson

[lexlawuk]

UK Professional Negligence Claims: Key Legal Cases & Principles

Businesses and individuals often depend on professionals for expert advice in specialised areas, assuming these professionals have the requisite qualifications and expertise to offer proper guidance. As a result, professionals are expected to carry out their responsibilities with a reasonable degree of skill and care. There is a potential risk that inaccurate advice from a consultant could result…

[peoplesprincessgeorge]

1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x

[ghostpantomime]

19, 20, 22

thank you! another read more

19) A time that you told a lie.

hm. i don't think i tell many lies. i think there's obvious times where it's like lying to your parents or i'm someone who is guilty of going yeah i'm fine when i feel bad. i try to be more open though and idk lying to people i care about just feels wrong for me to do. just thought of one time though where basically someone from a church tried to get me to go to this big event and i was like sorry i'm just visiting my family, i live far away and they were like oh where abouts and i fully just lied about where i live. turns out she lived in the same place i lied about living in so that sucked 😭😭.

20) What's a totally random and useless fact you know?

trying to will all my pub quiz knowledge forward so i can remember any random fact ever. uh. not random but law a level comes in clutch there's a case which set a huge precedent for tort law surrounding who you have a duty to and it was because someone opened a bottle, i think it was a drink, and there was a snail inside. (Donoghue v Stevenson)

22)What is your most prized posession?

idk. i care a lot about a lot of things for lots of different reasons. like i could say a sketchbook i won in an art contest or i could say my instruments or my art supplies, or my photos of things i've done, or the plane tickets or the ferry tickets. i think prized in terms of i will always keep it and its irreplaceable and i love it is anything to do with the panto. like genuinely my favourite piece of acting i've ever done and the experience and the people. ahhh. like my lockscreen ofc isnt a posession but to kind of further the point it is that picture because its amazing and i love it and because the memories attached to it.

[antonjesus]

The Paisley Snail: Donoghue v. Stevenson

[legalhub16]

LAW OF TORTS

NEGLIGENCE AND NERVOUS SHOCK

Introduction Negligence and nervous shock are significant factors in tort law. The number of medical negligence cases pending in courts exceeds 700, indicating that the total number of negligence cases can only be estimated. There are now many cases of nervous shock that are awaiting resolution in the courts. Despite its complexity, tort law is comprehensible. The term "tort" is derived from the Latin word "tortum," which translates to the English word "wrong." Tort law is an integral part of the legal system that addresses civil wrongs and provides redress to individuals who have been harmed by the actions of others. The cases it handles encompass a broad spectrum of subjects, spanning from negligence and defamation lawsuits to personal injuries and property damage. Essentially, the objectives of tort law are to provide compensation for the pain and harm experienced by victims and to deter others from engaging in similar wrongful acts. When attempting to define negligence based on legal principles, there is no precise definition of negligence available. Various views of negligence have been provided by distinguished jurists and major legal decisions. In the case of Jacob Mathew, the Supreme Court made a ruling stating that negligence can be defined as the omission of an action that a cautious and rational person would do, or the commission of an action that a rational person would not do, based on the usual principles that guide human behaviour. Failure to exercise reasonable care and expertise towards an individual to whom the defendant has a duty is considered legally actionable carelessness. The plaintiff may have suffered harm to either himself or his property as a consequence.

I. Concept of Nervous shock

This field of law is quite recent. It provides solace to individuals who may experience physical injury resulting from psychological distress induced by witnessing or hearing something, as opposed to being harmed by a direct physical force like a stick, bullet, or sword. In the case of Victorian Railway Commissioner v. Coultas, the Privy Council's Judicial Committee made a ruling in 1888 stating that injuries caused by a shock that entered the eye lenses or ear drums without direct touch were not acknowledged. They held the belief that a tangible collision or a comparable event was required for an action to be maintained. However, soon after the aforementioned judgement, it was revealed that nerve shock damage, which is unrelated to any physical impact, was detected. The outdated belief that the law should only take into account physical harm resulting from direct collision has been discarded, and it is now commonly recognised that injuries produced by shock sent through the eye or ear without physical contact are eligible for legal recourse.

II. Key elements of negligence In a negligence case, the plaintiff must show the following elements:

The plaintiff is owed a duty of care by the defendant, which the defendant breached, resulting in harm to the plaintiff. An exemplary instance of negligence is the legal case of Stevenson v. Donoghue (1932) A.C. 532. The sail in the bottle case is also referred to as this case. Donoghue, the plaintiff in this case, visited a café in Paisley accompanied by a friend. They make a purchase for a bottle of ginger beer and some beverages. The defendant, Stevenson, was responsible for producing the ginger beer that was supplied in the opaque, black glass bottle. While pouring the rest of the beer into her glass, the plaintiff's acquaintance observed a decaying snail emerging from the bottle. The plaintiff suffered from gastroenteritis and shock due to the ingestion of the snail's toxins in this repulsive setting. The court held the defendant responsible because he had a legal obligation to exercise reasonable caution in ensuring that the items were provided without any faults that could pose a risk to anyone's health.

III. Negligence as a criminal offence

Criminal negligence is the term used to describe the act of disregarding a well-known or obvious danger, thereby endangering another person's life or safety. Both federal and state courts classify this activity as recklessness when it deviates significantly from what an ordinary person would do in the same circumstances. Criminal negligence thresholds determine the level of responsibility for certain offences. Unintentional manslaughter exemplifies this crime. Typically, in the majority of jurisdictions, the prosecution is required to demonstrate that the offender exhibited criminal negligence, even if the victim's death was an unintended consequence of their behaviour.

Defence counsel employ a range of legal strategies to challenge allegations of criminal negligence. These include establishing that: 1. The accused lacked knowledge of the potential threat posed by their actions; 2. The accused committed the conduct unintentionally or as a result of a mistake; 3. The accused displayed appropriate care and caution in their behaviour.

The aforementioned highlighted section also constitutes the defences employed in cases of negligence. Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertains to cases involving negligence. Involuntary manslaughter. Anyone who causes the death of another person via reckless or careless behaviour that does not amount to intentional killing will be subject to imprisonment for a maximum of two years, a fine, or both.

IV. Judicial Pronouncement

Mayi Gowda v. State of Karnataka 20 December, 2002 - While the complainant and his five children were at the Mysore Dasara Exhibition Ground on October 7, 2002, around 8 p.m., they rode an elephant for fun. During the busy hour, the elephant got antsy and began to charge forward after going around in loops several times while the people who were complaining and other people were trying to get down from the cradle. The person who made the report was thrown to the ground, where he suffered serious injuries that took away all of his sight in both eyes. He worked as a doctor or nurse. He said that 9,90,000 rupees had been paid. The female elephant has been going on these rides and to these events for thirteen years. She had also been in films, at church events, and with V.I.P.s. It was agreed that the people who planned the fun ride on the other side had not been careless. The elephant's strange and unpleasant behaviour was just a mistake, so the protest was turned down.

V. Nervous Shock

Nervous shock is a part of negligence and is comparatively of recent origin. A firm grasp of the fundamentals of tort law pertaining to nerve shock claims is essential. All of the following must be present for a nervous shock case to be successful:

The burden of proof in a claim for nervous shock falls on the claimant in this chain of causation, which extends To prove that the mental harm occurred as a result of the defendant's carelessness. A causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the claimant's psychological or emotional distress is required. The plaintiff's nervous shock must have been directly related to the defendant's wrongdoing in order for this crucial element to be present. Take the terrible case of a bus colliding with a bike as a result of the defendant's careless and hasty driving. The claimant is an innocent witness to the horrific accident who experiences psychological harm as a result. It must be shown that the claimant's mental anguish resulted from seeing the accident, which was caused by the carelessness of the defendant, in order to establish a claim for shock. The claimant's emotional suffering must have been directly caused by the defendant's wrongdoing.

It must have been plainly obvious that the defendant's act or failure to act would cause the claimant to incur harm. This means that the defendant's conduct was likely to cause psychological or emotional distress, as any reasonable person would have recognised had they been in their position. The factor of foreseeability is crucial because it proves that the defendant's conduct caused the claimant's emotional harm.

Proximity: The claimant's mental harm and the defendant's behaviour are essential concepts in nervous shock claims. Both the validity of the claimant's nervous shock and the degree to which the defendant's conduct was accountable for inflicting emotional harm to the claimant are affected by the claimant's proximity. It may be necessary for a claimant to provide evidence of their physical proximity to the incident. An essential component of establishing nerve shock is being in close proximity to the incident or traumatic occurrence. It is also important that the claimant had direct personal involvement with the occurrence around the time it occurred. Note that the proximity criterion is not satisfied in cases of mental shock where the victim was informed about the incident through a third party. It is necessary to have been physically present or quite close to the horrific incident.

VI. Concluding Remarks

Taking the whole thing into consideration, the text sheds light on the ever-changing terrain of tort law, demonstrating its breadth from carelessness to the ever-evolving contours of nervous shock. In order to explain the fundamentals of negligence and the complexities that are associated with claims for emotional distress, it emphasises the jurisprudential nuances, based on legal principles and case studies. By providing a complete knowledge of the interplay between negligence and nerve shock within the legal system, this investigation highlights the significance of these concepts in addressing civil wrongs and securing just remedies for people who have been affected as a result of the actions or omissions of others.

VII. Bibliography

Over 700 negligence cases pending: medical council sets up panels to deal with them, The Indian Express (Jul. 7, 2018), https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/over-700-negligence-cases-pending-medical-council-sets-up-panels-to-deal-with-them-5249383/ (last visited Dec 6, 2023).

Law of Torts by R.K Bangia, studylib.net, https://studylib.net/doc/25885001/law-of-torts-by-r.k-bangia (last visited Dec 5, 2023).

Law of Torts by R.K Bangia, supra note 2.

Mayi Gowda vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 20 December, 2002, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1466321/ (last visited Dec 6, 2023).

[jamescarey]

Exploring Milestones: 8 Game-Changing Court Cases That Shaped Personal Injury Law

In the intricate tapestry of legal history, certain court cases stand out as pivotal moments, reshaping the contours of personal injury law. These landmark decisions not only established precedents but also fundamentally altered the legal landscape, influencing how individuals seek redress for injuries caused by the negligence or wrongdoing of others. Here, we delve into eight such game-changing court cases, tracing their impact and significance in the evolution of personal injury law.

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): Pioneering Duty of Care

Donoghue v. Stevenson, a case revolving around a snail in a bottle of ginger beer, may seem quaint, but its implications were far-reaching. This landmark ruling established the principle of duty of care, asserting that manufacturers owe a duty to consumers to ensure their products are safe. By extending liability beyond contractual relationships, this case laid the groundwork for modern negligence law, emphasizing accountability and consumer protection.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928): Probing Proximate Cause

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. delved into the intricacies of proximate cause, shaping the boundaries of liability in personal injury cases. The court's ruling emphasized the importance of foreseeability in establishing liability, highlighting that defendants can only be held accountable for harms that were reasonably foreseeable. This decision continues to influence how courts assess causation in negligence claims, balancing legal principles with practical considerations.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): A Stride Towards Equality

While not a conventional personal injury case, Brown v. Board of Education was a watershed moment in the fight against discrimination. By striking down segregation in public schools, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle of equal protection under the law. This landmark decision not only addressed the systemic harm inflicted by segregation but also paved the way for broader civil rights reforms, championing equality and justice for all.

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916): Expanding Product Liability

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. heralded a seismic shift in product liability law, holding manufacturers accountable for defects that cause harm to consumers. By rejecting the restrictive doctrine of privity of contract, this case established the principle of strict liability, imposing a duty of care directly on manufacturers. This decision revolutionized consumer protection, emphasizing the need for stringent safety standards and corporate accountability.

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981): Exposing Corporate Negligence

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. brought corporate negligence into sharp focus, revealing the human costs of prioritizing profits over safety. The case, stemming from defects in the Ford Pinto that led to catastrophic injuries, underscored the duty of corporations to prioritize consumer welfare. With its substantial punitive damages award, this ruling sent a powerful message, demanding accountability and transparency in corporate practices.

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944): Strengthening Consumer Rights

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. bolstered consumer rights by affirming the principle of strict liability for defective products. The court's decision held manufacturers responsible for injuries caused by product defects, irrespective of negligence. This ruling reinforced consumer protections, compelling manufacturers to prioritize safety and quality assurance in their products.

Helling v. Carey (1974): Promoting Preventive Healthcare

Helling v. Carey marked a significant milestone in healthcare law, emphasizing the importance of preventive measures in patient care. By affirming a physician's duty to conduct screening tests for early detection of diseases, this case underscored the imperative of proactive healthcare practices. This decision not only prioritized patient welfare but also laid the foundation for informed medical decision-making and preventive healthcare protocols.

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976): Safeguarding Public Safety

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California addressed the duty of mental health professionals to protect potential victims from their patients' foreseeable harm. This groundbreaking ruling established the obligation of therapists to warn or take preventive measures when patients pose a danger to others. By prioritizing public safety, this decision sets a precedent for balancing patient confidentiality with the broader duty to protect society from harm.

The annals of personal injury law are replete with watershed moments—court cases that not only shaped legal doctrine but also reflected broader societal values of justice, accountability, and equality. From establishing fundamental principles of negligence and duty of care to championing consumer rights and public safety, these eight influential cases have left an indelible mark on the legal landscape. As we navigate the complexities of modern jurisprudence, these milestones serve as guiding beacons, illuminating the path towards a more just and equitable legal system where the rights and well-being of individuals are paramount.

[lawmarkuk]

The tale of the thirsty snail

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562

On this week in 1932, the House of Lords in London delivered what was to become a seminal judgement on what might have been considered an otherwise mundane set of facts.

On Sunday 26 August 1928, Mrs May Donoghue went into the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley, accompanied by a friend.  The friend ordered for her an ‘ice cream float’ from the proprietor, Mr Francis Minchella. Mrs Donoghue was supplied with an opaque bottle containing ginger beer which had been manufactured by the Defendant, Mr David Stevenson.  Mr Minchella poured some of the bottle’s contents over two slabs of ice cream in a tumbler, from which Mrs Donoghue then drank.  When her friend subsequently poured the remainder of the bottle into the tumbler, it transpired that it contained a decomposed snail.  Mrs Donoghue suffered shock and severe gastroenteritis.  

A complication for Mrs Donoghue was that she had no contractual relationship with Mr Michella, her friend having made the purchase.  This prompted a novel approach of issuing proceedings against the manufacturer directly.

Giving judgement, Lord Aiken developed what has come to be known as the neighbour principle:

The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question "Who is my neighbour?" receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? 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.

Strangely, no one seems to know how things worked out for Mrs Donoghue.  What her adverse experience did however achieve was to establish what we have come to know as the tort of negligence.

[thisselflovecamebacktome]

Me, a law student, at any politicians saying they didn’t have a duty of care over the robodebt situation:  🐌 🐌 🐌  🐌

[dashedwithromance]

i’m never gonna be free of this goddamn snail

[1995lahaine]

ugh FINE i guess i'll read donoghue v stevenson. but im not happy about it

[saturnsupremacy]

Facts:

Edward dropped out of his Law degree three times because he couldn’t get past the Donoghue v Stevenson case #Justice4theSnail

[peachy-political]

Hullo, as a native Paisleyian, were you ever told about Donoghue v Stevenson, aka the decomposed snail case?

I used to live near the monument for that, a nice wee tale tbh.

[lawlessons]

Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605

Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman is a key cases for negligence and duty of care found in Tort Law within a UK Bachelor of Laws LLB degree.

Negligence – Duty of Care – Tort Law Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman is one of the key cases concerning negligence and duty of care found in Tort Law within a UK Bachelor of Laws LLB degree. It moves reliance from the wide scoped test found in Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 and expand on the neighbour principle found in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 to identify if a duty…

[dranupamkumarmishra]

Donoghue Vs. Stevenson (1932)

Donoghue Vs. Stevenson (1932)

DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON (1932) Principle used: Doctrine of Negligence and Neighbour Principle Facts of the Case: Mrs. Mary M’Alister, or Donoghue, the appellant, drank the contents of a ginger beer bottle her friend had purchased on August 26, 1928. The bottle was made by the responder and purchased at Wellmeadow Café. After drinking the majority of the beer, the responder filled a glass with the…