Sunday, March 31, 2019

Donoghue v Stevenson Analysis

Donoghue v Stevenson AnalysisIntroductionThe slip-up of Donoghue v Stevenson is arguably one of the most famous causes in the park justness system and definitely one of the most important in the history of the development of the tort law. The revolutionary significance of the purpose in this illustration is in the establishment of a standardised work of look at in negligence sideslips. Indeed, over the years after the precedent was objurgate the courts have progressively shifted from the ascertaining a specific duty of cargon for each kind of situations, to the start step up that assumes the existence of the general duty of solicitude as it was established in Donoghue v Stevenson, and in imageicular gentle Atkins famous neighbour tenet.1 This essay is going to discuss the relevance of the dominions established in this case in the modern tort law. The essay will scoop with the discussion of the established precedent, then moving to the development of the neighbour principle in the subsequent case law and its application today.The grandeur of the termination of the caseIn fact, the case established several important principles. They are the recognition of the negligence as a distinct tort, the recognition of indebtedness in situations, where in that respect is no contractual relationship amidst the defendant and the claimant, the establishment of a duty of worry owned by manufacturers to the eventual(prenominal) consumers and the neighbour principle. 2Nevertheless, Lord Atkins neighbour principle is the most well-known part of the close of the case, despite the fact that according to the official sources it was never a part of the ratio of the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson.3 Lord Atkins orgasm was recognised for the first time war cry count 1391in the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller4, and ulterior in the rest home Office v Dorset boat Co Ltd Lord Reid stated that the decision in the case of Donoghue should be treated as a precede nt and that that it ought to apply unless thither is many justification or valid explanation for its exclusion.5 The idea behind this was to combine the previous cases and to make the decisions in the future cases to a greater extent predictable. Thus, the neighbour principle established two concepts foreseeability and proximity. These two key concepts triggered the development of tort law in the 20th century.The development of the established conceptsThe principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson was seen as an important milestone in the history of tort law as it was the first successful attempt to set out a general principle with respect to the concept of the duty of care. However, later the courts started to acknowledge that the neighbour principle was too simplistic and limited in scope. Therefore, the evolution of the tort of negligence since the snail in the bottle case has been a search for control mechanisms that can limit the scope of the duty concept. So, within the case law on duty of care there has been a shift from a general concept of duty hypothesize in the neighbour principle to more specific criteria.Indeed, in Anns v Merton capital of the United Kingdom Borough Council, the House of Lords decided to modify the test for the establishment of a duty of care by imposing policy considerations to limit the deceit of a duty of care.6 The test formulated in Anns was that the defendant owed the claimant to debate reasonable care, as long as it was reasonably foreseeable that a failure of doing so would result in damage to the claimant, unless there was close to policy reason that limited the scope of the duty or the correct of people to whom it was owed or the damages to which a split of the duty mayWord count 1391give rise. 7The first part of the test understandably corresponds to the Lord Atkins test, but the second part was created to restrict claims. The main objurgation of this test was that it could lead to an expansion of the sit uations in which a duty of care could arise. Therefore, in 1990 the Anns test was rejected in the case of Murphy v Brentwood territory Council.8As the test set in Anns was not adapted enough, and it was replaced with the test for a duty of care set in Caparo Industries v Dickman. 9 The Caparo test narrowed the test set in Anns by implementing an additional stage to the test. The Caparo test consists of requirements of reasonably foreseeable harm, a relationship of proximityaand that for the imposition of a duty to be fair just and reasonable. The first two stages of Caparo test were based on judgement in Anns, which corresponds back to Lord Atkins neighbourhood principle and the fair, just and reasonable requirement relates to resembling human beings policy considerations as the second stage of the Anns test. However, an essential difference between Caparo and Anns is that Caparo test emphasised the incremental and by coincidence speak to in order to prevent massive extensio ns of the duty of care concept, meaning that there must be an analogous situation in the previous case law in order to justify the extension of the duty of care in novel situations.10 By accepting the incremental and by analogy approach the courts rejected the broad formulations from the previous case law and cumber the precedent set in Donoghue v Stevenson to cases concerned with physical damage. 11Word count 1391So, from one point of view, it can be said that the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson created a basis for the establishment of the test in Caparo as first two requirements are clearly taken from the neighbour test. However, some critics say that the intention of judges in Caparo was to change the neighbour principle in entirety. Indeed, in the modern times the incremental approach developed in Caparo suggests that the claimant can only sue the defendant for the breach of the duty of care only in situations where the existence of the duty is established. This seems to figh t down the aim of Lord Atkins biblical principle. 12As has been recognised in Anns and Caparo, the approach taken by the judges in Donoghue v Stevenson is too simple, in particular in the modern times, where the law of negligence has become even more complicated than it used to be. Nowadays the courts use different approaches for different situations, for theoretical account the approach for the establishment of duty of care for psychiatric injuries is not the same as for physical injuries. Indeed, according to Heuston other considerations beyond foreseeability and proximity light to acquire greater significance and the principles established in Donoghue are relevant only to relatively straightforward cases, but not to the liability for non-physical injuries, or for omissions, or for the conduct of third parties.13 However, it can be said that the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson formed a foundation for the development of exclusively the aforementioned areas of tort law.Conclus ionTo conclude, some scholars express the view that the importance of the case of Donoghue v Stevenson was overrated both by its supporters and critics.14 However, in my opinion, even though the importance of the decision of this case nowadays is reduced, the case has a invariable effect, the significance of which lies not only in the established principles, but in the ideas that changed the law of tort forever, and in particular the law of negligence.BibliographyCasesDonoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller Partners Ltd 1963 2 All ERHome Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd 1970 AC 1004Anns v Merton London Borough Council 1977 UKHL 4Murphy v Brentwood District Council 1991 UKHL 2Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman 1990 UKHL 2ArticlesJ.C. Smith, Peter Burns, Donoghue v. Stevenson The Not so florid Anniversary 1983, MLR 1R.F.V. Heuston, Donoghue v Stevenson in Retrospect, 1957, MLR 20(1)Gavin Murphy, The snail and the ginger beer the singular case of Donoghue v Stevenson 2011, CLB 37(1)Keith Patten, garner trail, (New right Journal, 11 May 2012) assessed 22 November 2016Z0973311 Word count 1391Jessica Randell, profession of Care Haunting Past, indefinite Future (2014) North East uprightness Review 2 (2)BooksSimon Deakin, black Angus Johnston, Basil Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakins Tort truth (7th edn, Oxford University cheer higher(prenominal) Education share 2012)Horsey K., Rackley E., Tort Law (3rd edn, Oxford University Press Higher Education Division 2013)1 J. C. Smith and Peter Burns, Donoghue v. Stevenson-The Not So Golden Anniversary (1983) 46 (2) MLR 12 R. F. V. Heuston, Donoghue v. Stevenson in Retrospect (1957) 20(1) MLR3 Keith Patten, Snail trail, (New Law Journal, 11 May 2012) assessed 22 November 20164 Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller Partners Ltd 1963 2 All ER5 Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd Lord Reid 1970 AC 10046 Anns v Merton London Borough Council 1977 UKHL 47 Kirsty Horsey, Erika Rackley, Tort Law (3rd edn, Oxford Un iversity Press Higher Education Division 2013)8 Murphy v Brentwood District Council 1991 UKHL 29Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 1990 UKHL 210 Jessica Randell, Duty of Care Haunting Past, Uncertain Future (2014) North East Law Review 2 (2)11 Simon Deakin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markensinis, Markesinis and Deakins Tort Law (7th edn, Oxford University Press Higher Education Division 2012)12 Patten(n 3)13 Heuston (n 2)14 Gavin Murphy, The snail and the ginger beer the singular case of Donoghue v Stevenson 2011, CLB 37(1)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.