Tort Law - MAlister v Stevenson - Case Study Example

Tort Law Full Case The full of the provided case is M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson. 2. Introduction The case study attempts to clearly explore the concept, significance along with various provisional aspects associated with the principles of tort of negligence. For better understanding of the same, the study determines to provide an in-depth overview considering one of the renowned legal cases i.e. M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson. The discussion of this case study therefore highly focuses on providing a brief description, main issue and significance of the aforementioned case. Brief Description, Issue and Significance of the Case The case M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson is typically viewed to be one of the renowned and most controversial legal circumstances, which grasped the attention of the individuals around the world. The case is considered to establish civil law tort of negligence and consequently, made the entrepreneurs especially the manufacturers to realize possessing strong set of duty of care rendered towards each individual or group of customers. The event took place in the year 1928 in Scotland, while Mrs. May Donoghue was offered a bottle of ginger beer, which was bought by one of her friends. However, the bottle was later discovered to contain decomposing snail, which mainly led towards a severe issue. The case had been apparently observed to emerge a number of legal principles with respect to the claim made by Mrs. Donoghue against the beer manufacturer Mr. Stevenson. Specially mentioning, the significance of this case lays in the fact that it highlighted a set of strong compliances established by the Scotland’s highest civil court concerning the protection of duty of care on behalf of the manufacturers towards their consumers1. 3. Facts of the Case According to the case, it was found that Mrs. Donoghue along with her friend ordered ginger beer and ice in a cafe. After drinking certain quantity of the beer, her friend poured the remaining beer into a tumbler. While pouring the beer, Mrs. Donoghue observed that a decomposed snail was floated out of the bottle. The incident caused major internal injury to Mrs. Donoghue, which further made her ill and diagnosed with gastroenteritis by a doctor. The incident subsequently took Mrs. Donoghue to charge legal case against the manufacturer of the particular ginger beer i.e. Mr. Stevenson. She also lodged a court order in the Court of Sessions with seeking £500 as a damage2. The claim lodged by Mrs. Donoghue was successfully accepted by the Scotland’s highest civil court. The precedents made by Lord of Atkins were further observed to form a number of legal policies for the manufacturers towards performing their primary duty of care rendered to the consumers. In this similar context, Mrs. Donoghue was granted to appeal her claim to the House of Lords with the aim of claiming damages caused due to the negligent practices performed by the manufacturer. In the year 1932, the judgment of Lord Atkins was made against Mr. Stevenson, making him liable to be for breaching his duty of care while manufacturing ginger beer, which further caused severe health issue to the claimant i.e. Mrs. Donoghue. Soon after the decision made in the House of Lords, the case M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson was referred to the original court wherein Mrs. Donoghue was awarded under a compensatory ground regarding her illness caused by the negligent manufacturing process of ginger beer3. 4. Legal Background of the Case The case M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson had been witnessed to emerge a set of legal principles on the ground of duty of care and tort of negligence that can put harm on the individuals. The following discussion briefly summarizes the legal principles associated with the above discussed case (UK Law Online, 1998; British and Irish Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Firstly, the court considered the negligence as a distinct tort wherein plaintiffs are legally authorized to lodge civil action against any respondent, only if the plaintiff experienced physical/mental injury or financial loss due to the negligent causes made by the respondents4. Secondly, the manufacturers must possess a duty of care to their each individual or group of consumers. According to the decision of the case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson, the manufacturers are subjected to take adequate care and ensure to be owed that the products do not have any contaminated ingredient or material, which impose negative impact on consumers’ health5. Thirdly, as per the comments made by Lord Atkins, the manufacturers or any other individual must ensure to take reasonable care in order to circumvent practices that might have impose negative impact on the consumers or the neighbors. Therefore, the case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson had been apparently noted to provide a major insight on the legal aspects that ensure protecting consumers from various negligent practices or breach of duty of care perform by the manufacturers6. 5. Issues of the Case According to the judgment of the case, the claimant must need to prove that the breach of duty made by the defendant eventually caused physical/psychological injury to the plaintiff and thus faced a feasible amount of financial loss7. With respect to the legal principles raised from the case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson, it can be stated that the policies underneath each legal standard have significant insights along with legal reasoning. According to the decisions made by Lord Atkins, it is worth mentioning that the legal principles provide greater authority to the consumers claiming against the manufacturers while serving damaged goods leading to cause physical or mental injury. Correspondingly, the breach of duty in the case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson had also demonstrated to impose major shock on the psychological conditions of the plaintiff. In this regard, it is evident that the negligence in producing ginger beer by Mr. Stevenson determines to involve a breach concerning the duty of care rendered to the consumers. It would be vital to mention that the negligent practice in terms of manufacturing the product caused severe gastro-enteritis to Mrs. Donoghue, which further led her to face feasible amount of financial loss. Therefore, the evidence concerning severe physical injury along with mental shock related problems faced by the claimant eventually determine that the defendant of this case had breached the principles relating to duty of care8. Based on the above discussion, it can be affirmed that the case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson is one of the major legal proceedings to landmark a set of strong legal principles concerning the breach of duty of care. However, the establishment of legal standards especially the neighbor principle developed by Lord Atkins had been witnessed to face major changes with the existing law. For instance, the legal reasoning associated with similar cases as instigated by the House of Lords involve a distinctive principle regarding duty of care or negligent practices that impose negative impact on any individual. The reasoning associated with the aforementioned case was found to be consistent with the case of Ansell v Waterhouse (1817) wherein the legal liability raised due to the negligent practices of the respondent causing physical injury to the appellant9. In this regard, the decisions made by Lord Atkins relating to the case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson can be regarded as an appropriate measure that provides authority to the appellant i.e. Mrs. Donoghue to claim against the negligent practices performed by the defendant i.e. Mr. Stevenson. Hence, the decisions can have major influence on the existing law10. The interpretation of the law linked with the case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson was apparently noted to use appropriate set of principles and measures. The decisions of Lord Atkins included certain legal and logical evidences concerning the possible consequences that might be derived from the negligent practices performed by the respondent. However, it is worth mentioning that the decisions made in the House of Lords omitted certain measures that are likely to avoid the negligent behavior of the respondents, causing physical or mental injury to the claimant. In this similar context, the alternative approach such as comprehending lawful obligations relating to duty of care from similar cases could lead towards more appropriate public policy in this similar area by a certain level. 6. Conclusion The case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson provides a major insight regarding the principles that are associated with breaching duty of care, leading towards imposing physical injuries or financial loss. Moreover, the establishment of legal principles relating to the case ensures to provide adequate authority to the claimant i.e. Mrs. Donoghue only if she was misguided or experienced any sort of physical or psychological harm. According to the impact and the significance of the decisions made by Lord Atkins, the case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson develops a remarkable precedent concerning the issue of negligence. In relation to policy implications, the decisions may provide major insights to the courts for addressing future issues associated with the similar cases depicted above. Based on the consequences observed in the case, the decisions made can further improve the preceding measures of the courts to effectively deal with future issues, implying that the new precedent may not be overturned. References British and Irish Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Malister or donoghue (pauper) appellant v. Stevenson. Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html E-Law Resources. (n.d.). Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 House of Lords. Retrieved from http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Donoghue-v-Stevenson.php Handford, P. (n.d.). Intentional negligence: a contradiction in terms? Sydney Law Review, 32(29): 29-62. UK Law Online. (1998). Donoghue (or McAlister) v Stevenson, [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/donoghue.htm Read More