Principles of the Law of Negligence - Essay Example

Principles of the Law of Negligence (Donoghue v Stevenson) The Donoghue v Stevenson case is one of themost important cases as it set precedents that have been used in negligence law. The case involves the plaintiff, Donoghue, who on 26th August 1928, went to a restaurant with a friend, who embarked on purchasing ginger beer, which was packed in a sealed opaque bottle. Thereafter, Donoghue drank the contents of the bottle before her friend poured the rest of the contents of the ginger bottle beer into a tumbler. Upon pouring the contents, they discovered a decomposing snail pouring out of the bottle. Donoghue was very shocked by the sight of the snail and the resultant impurities poured from the bottle. In addition she suffered from severe stomach pains (gastro enteritis) which she related to the contents of the ginger beer bottle (manufactured by Stevenson), which she had consumed earlier on (Enright 347). The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s negligence (snail infested beer) caused her grievous emotional harm (shock) and extreme gastroenteritis. In her argument, she argued that the manufacturer was liable because he had manufactured beer that was meant for the consumption by the general public and which led to her illness. In fact, the bottle was labelled under his name, thus proving ownership of the beer and its contents. In addition, the beer was sealed before consumption meaning that the contents of the bottle (ginger beer and the snail) could be traced directly to Stevenson. Therefore, the defendant had a duty of care to Donoghue because she was directly harmed by his actions and the defendant should have had a check mechanism in place to ensure that the ginger beer was safe for public consumption. Since Stevenson failed to do this, he was liable for negligence. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in trial but her case was appealed in the House of Lords where it was ruled in her favor on grounds of the neighbor principle. In his judgement, Lord Atkins asserted that one should take reasonable care to ensure that one’s actions do not harm their neighbor. In short, one should not intentionally harm their neighbor in foresight, as they will be found to be negligent for any grievous harm inflicted on their neighbors due to their actions/ omissions. In this case, neighbors refer to people who are foreseeably affected in reasonable degree by a person’s omissions or actions. This means that a duty of care is owed to one’s neighbors but not to the world in general. This principle is a legal application of the love your neighbor philosophy (Linden 335). The other major point of the neighbor principle to consider is the consideration of one’s action or inaction and its direct effect on a neighbor. If one’s actions/inactions are deemed to have reasonably been responsible for the affliction affecting another person (neighbor), then the person held responsible for the inaction or action will be held responsible as they owe a duty of care in the eyes of the law. Therefore, one should be very keen and vigilant when pursuing actions that may cause injury to a neighbor. With relation to the Donoghue v Stevenson case, it’s clear that the defendant was negligent because the manufacturer put beer in the bottle with the specific intention of having it consumed by the consumer, Donoghue (Linden 340). Some of the issues raised in the case is whether a duty of care is owed between people with no prior contact such as between Donoghue and Stevenson. The House of Lords tackled this issue by stating that even in the absence of prior contact, a duty of care is owed because the actions/omissions of Stevenson led to grievous harm on the plaintiff Donoghue. In addition, there were actions that if the defendant had undertaken, the plaintiff would not have suffered. In this case, had Stevenson instituted a quality assurance system, before sealing the bottle of ginger beer, the impurities would not have been present in the ginger beer bottle. Also, the manufacturer’s actions wouldn’t have resulted in Donoghue’s shock and contraction of gastro-enteritis. In addition, by having sealed the opaque bottle, the plaintiff was unable to see the contents of the bottle. Therefore, the actions of the defendant left the plaintiff with no option but to trust that the contents of the beer were safe and he depended on the manufacturer. This points to a relationship where a duty of care is existent. When a duty of care is existent, negligence on the part of one party resulting in injury and loss should result to legal remedy on the injured party. In the Donoghue v Stevenson case, the plaintiff was affected by the negligence of the defendant as he provided a flawed commodity. In such a case, the consumer is supposed to have legal recourse against the producer/manufacturer, as denying this remedy is a social injustice. Therefore, Donoghue was right to sue Stevenson for damages (Enright 353). In conclusion, the manufacturer’s inaction (negligence) was responsible for the plaintiff’s injury and therefore a duty of care was owed. Indeed, manufactures have a duty of care to the consumers of their goods especially when the products are not inspected between production and consumption. Therefore, for a consumer to sue the manufacturer, the presence of prior contact or a contractual relationship is not necessary. This decision by the House of Lords resulted in the formation of the neighbor principle, which is deemed to a large extent as the foundation of the law of negligence in its current form and application. Works Cited. Enright, Christopher. Legal Technique. Annandale, N.S.W.: Federation, 2002. Print. Linden, Allen, and Feldthusen, Bruce. Canadian Tort Law. [10th ed.]. Canada: Lex Nexis., 2015. Print. Read More