English Jurisdiction - Case Study Example

May, furthermore, complained that she had suffered from emotional anguish after the incident. Consequently, May Donoghue filed an action suit against the manufacturer of the ginger beer, David Stevenson, in April of 1929 seeking 500 as payment for the damages inflicted as a result of drinking the ginger beer (1 page 563 Court Records).1 The consequences of the suit - Donoghue v Stevenson - and the events which ensued later still stand as one of the most prominent cases in United Kingdom's legal history and changed the course of consumer law perpetually, as the decision of the House of Lords, UK's supreme appeals court, established a very significant foundation of the delict law not just in Scotland but also all over the world.

The House of Lords affirmed that scope of their judgment principles covered English Law as well (page 564 Court Records).2 Donoghue lodged her case in Court of Session in 1929 with the help of Walter Leechman who at that time was already familiar with the previous rulings of the courts with regards manufacturers' liability to consumers in Scotland (Mullen v. A.G. Barr & Co. 1929 S.C. 461). This previous rulings were the main basis of the Scotland's delict law which affirmed that manufacturers have no obligations to or contractual relationship with an individual if she did not pay for the consumer item.

Thus May Donoghue could not claim damages or file suit against the manufacturer under the Scottish delict law. The courts ruled twice removing, Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer, of any legal responsibility citing the courts previous ruling in Mullen v A.G. Barr.Donohue and her lawyer sought appeals from the House of Lords which overturned the decisions of the previous courts and overruled Mullen v. Barr Co., Ld., and M'Gowan v. Barr Co., Ld., 1929 S. C. 461. The House of Lords argued that the manufacturer is liable to the consumer when he places an item for sale for consumption purposes without aptly examining the product.

Care should be practiced in ensuring that the article or item sold to the consumer 'is not injurious to health.' Hence the manufacturer is liable to the appellant as he put upon his product, the ginger beer - designed in such a way that consumers would not be able to determine what was inside the bottle. The House of Lords in this ruling has asserted that responsibility rested upon the manufacturer of the ginger beer as, whether the design of the bottle which made it difficult for the consumers to inspect its content, was done intentionally or unintentionally, the rights of the consumers must be protected.

The issue, according to the court, was not the contention that the manufacturers committed fraud but the manufacturer's apparent negligence (page 565 Court Records). Lord Bruckmaster argued that the principles the courts gleaned from the appeal is that, the manufacturer, or anyone who confers another service of work as for instance, the repairer, 'owes a duty to any person by whom the article is lawfully used to see that the it has been carefully constructed.' (page 578 Court Records) However, Buckmaster also notes that (page 578 Court Records), that this duty, outside the contractual obligation of the manufacturer, is very broad and covers every item, because this obligation can be extended to every person