Exploring The Donoghue V Stevenson Case Analysis
Task: Analyse a landmark UK case of your choice and discuss how it has had an impact on how the law works today.
The readings of Kaplan, (2019) considered in the Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis signifies that the legal system of UK seems to be one of those which is related to the precedence as well as case law. Above 100 years, the court has been known to make decisions which can impact the way law works in recent days and the way it can evolve in future. However, there have been several marker decisions which have affected the legal landscape within UK. The present study has highlighted the case study of “The Paisley Snail and duty of care - Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis” along with discussing its impacts within the recent law.
Identification and discussion of relevant legislation
The law of UK seems to regulate the corporations that are formed as per the companies’ act 2006 and is also having governed through the insolvency act 1986 that is the UK Corporate Governance Code. As per the European Union court cases and Directives, an organisation seems to be a primary legal vehicle for organising along with running the business. Based on the respective case study, the concept of negligence has been identified which has been in the year of 1932 when the “House of Lords decision” can position out the standard where a person can owe the duty of care towards another. Thus, the respective Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis has resulted in an important case for the Western Law (Baskind et al., 2019). The main ruling within the present case has established a civil law tort for negligence as well as obliged businesses for observing the duty for care of the customers. It has been evidenced that the manufacturers consist of a legal duty based on care for the ultimate customers regarding their products if it seems not to be possible for identifying the defects before receiving the goods. The Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis (1932) UKHL 100 has been the decision of landmark court within Scots delict law as well as English tort law through the House of Lords.
In the Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis, Donoghue has been considered to be an effective test case for the determination if the person comprised a cause of action rather than owing the compensation regarding any of the suffered damages. As stated by Devenney, (2016), the law based on negligence at the specified time has been very slender and be also involved if there has been some of the recognized contractual relationship. Thus, the outcomes of the respective case were found to set up certain legal principles.
In the first place, the ruling of the House of Lords affirmed about this negligence to be a tort. This resembles that a plaintiff might take a social act over a respondent if the negligence of the respondents can cause plaintiff injury along with property loss. As Donoghue was known not to purchase the drink, it can be provided for having no contractual agreement with Stevenson. However, the judgement of Lord Atkin well-known Stevenson to be still responsible for the integrity based on the product.
Duty of care
The Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis has been found to set up that the manufacturers consist of a duty of care for their customers related to their products. As per the ratio decendi of Lord Atkins which is a manufacturer for products that is sold for reaching ultimate customers through which they have left to owe a duty for the customers for taking reasonable care (Twigg-Flesner et al., 2016). Thus, the precedent evolved the forms as per the foundation of laws which can defend the customers through tainted goods. These respective protections began to be the ordinary law however; these have been codified within the legislation like Trade Practices Act (Commonwealth 1974).
The particular case of “Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis produced Lord Atkin’s controversial neighbour principle”. This has unlimited the tort for the negligence beside the tortfeasor along with an instant party (Pratt, 2020). This has eventually raised the query through which individuals can be affected with negligent actions. Within the case of Donoghue the ginger beer was not purchased rather received as a gift. Donohue seemed to be more of a neighbour as compared to being a party for the contract. Thus, according to Atkin related to the respective principle, “one must have taken reasonable care for avoiding the omissions and acts that can be reasonably foreseen which might be likely for injuring the neighbour”. Thus, a question arises that “who within the law seems to be the neighbour”. As evidenced by Dyer, (2019), this answer consists of the persons who have been directly and closely affected through the act that were in mind when omissions and acts were considered.
The significance of the respective case study was known to establish the negligence law which is immobile within Queensland being a conception of duty of care. However, one can also defend against the law of negligence. For instance, the defendant must try to cancel out one of the basics based on the plaintiff's cause of action. However, as put forward by Mohan and Raj, (2019), the defendant can introduce any evidence which they might not have owed for a duty towards the plaintiff along with exercising the reasonable care that did not cause the damages of plaintiff and similar others as well.
Thus, in recent days, it has been evidenced that the businesses seem to be at risk for the claims of professional negligence. One of the mistakes can damage a good reputation of the clients losing the money along with causing some personal injury as well (Argenziano and Weeds, 2019). However, the businesses eventually offer advice within the professional capacity that are known to be vulnerable. The people working within the business sectors and medical industry need to be diligent and must take proper care as per the NHS Litigation Authority. This is because the consequences of the medical negligence can go higher in the recent days which might put within the categories based on monetary liability; criminal liability and disciplinary action as well.
To conclude, the present study has evaluated the case study of “The Paisley Snail and duty of care - Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis” considering its impacts in the recent days of laws. The legislation or rather the legal policies of the respective case study has also been discussed in the present study. Hence, the negligence law in the recent days has been termed to be important and is still followed within certain parts of UK.
Argenziano, R. and Weeds, H., 2019. Bias and negligence with freedom of information. The Economic Journal, 129(624), pp.2979-2998.
Baskind, E., Osborne, G. and Roach, L., 2019. Commercial Law. 3rd ed. Hampshire: Oxford University Press
Devenney, J., 2016. Concentrate: Questions and Answers Contract Law. 2nd ed. Hampshire: Oxford University Press
Dyer, C., 2019. Government considers legal reforms to resolve high cost of clinical negligence claims. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online), 364.
Kaplan, 2019. ACCA Corporate and Business Law (ENG) Study Text. Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis London: Kaplan Publishing
Mohan, M.R. and Raj, V., 2019. Medical Negligence and Law. Economic & Political Weekly, 54(42), p.45.
Pratt, M.G., 2020. What Would the Defendant have Done but for the Wrong?. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(1), pp.28-52.
Twigg-Flesner, C., Canavan, R., and MacQueen, H., 2016.Atiyah and Adams’ Sale of Goods. Harlow: Pearson