A principle developed by Lord Atkin
James Atkin, Baron Atkin
James Richard Atkin, Baron Atkin, PC, FBA, known as Dick Atkin, was a lawyer and judge of Irish, Welsh and Australian origin, who practised in England and Wales. He always thought of himself as a New South Welshman, and was President of the London Welsh Trust from 1938 to 1944.
See more
What was the purpose of the case Donoghue v Stephenson?
In Donoghue v Stephenson the House of Lords deemed it necessary to overcome the problems generated by privity of contract in order to provide an alternative route of claim for an injured party. It was Mrs Donoghue’s friend that purchased the ginger beer that ultimately caused her injury and therefore only her friend that had a right to sue under the contract. The House of Lords solved this problem by imposing liability in negligence on the owner of the café, specifying that such would be possible where a duty of care could be found to lie between the owner (the tortfeasors) and the victim (Mrs Donoghue). Lord Atkin outlined the parameters of the duty of care in this field in the following often-quoted terms:
What is the neighbor principle?
The so-called “neighbour principle” laid down in the seminal case Donoghue v Stephenson (1932) provided the foundation and conceptual cornerstone for the development of the law of negligence in the twentieth century . The seemingly trivial facts of the case, which concerned two friends who visited a café only for one of them to discover a decomposed snail in a bottle of ginger beer purchased by the other, belie the importance of the decision ultimately handed down by the House of Lords. In the following discussion the principle articulated by Lord Atkin to determine the boundaries of the duty of care in negligence is considered in the context of other relevant case law.
What was the principle laid down in Donoghue?
The principle laid down in Donoghue certainly provided a solid foundation for the resolution of duty of care issues, but it did not provide an overarching and fully comprehensive principle immune from subsequent development and refinement.
Who introduced the principle of neighbor?
Lord Atkin introduced his explanation of the neighbour principle in Donoghue by stating: “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour;”.
Does tortfeasor have a duty of care?
It is clear that the principle does not throw open the floodgates to unlimited claims, because a tortfeasor will not be held to owe a duty of care to those who are not close enough to be in his or her contemplation at the moment of the tortious act or omission.
Is the neighbour principle good?
Therefore, in conclusion it is argued that the neighbour princip le provided a good conceptual starting point for the law in this field, but as subsequent case law has demonstrated it is not adequate for exclusive application. The neighbour principle remains the foundation of the law on the duty of care, but it has been added to and refined by the courts over the years and thus should not be relied upon slavishly or in a blinkered fashion.
What is the significance of the case Donoghue?
Donoghue, a Scottish dispute, is a famous case in English law which was instrumental in shaping the law of tort and the doctrine of negligence in particular.
What is the primary outcome of Donoghue?
However, the primary outcome of Donoghue, and what it is best known for, is the further development of the neighbour principle by Lord Atkin, who said: [8]
Why was Caparo v. Glasgow argued unsuccessfully?
It was argued unsuccessfully in Mitchell and another v Glasgow City Council15 that because Caparo was concerned with economic loss it had little application to personal injury claims; Lord Hope said that, “….the origins of the fair, just and reasonable test show that its utility is not confined to that category.” [16]
What emerges from the foreseeability of damage?
What emerges is that, in addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as one of ‘proximity’ or ‘neighbourhood’ and that the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair , just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope on the one party for the benefit of the other. [13]
Who delivered the HoL for Mrs Donoghue?
The HoL found for Mrs Donoghue with the leading judgment delivered by Lord Atkin in a 3-2 majority with Buckmaster L and Tomlin L dissenting. The ratio decidendi of the case is not straightforward. Indeed, it could be interpreted as narrow as to establish a duty not to sell opaque bottles of ginger-beer, containing the decomposed remains of a dead snail, to Scottish widows. [6]
Did Mrs Donoghue prove her averments?
Mrs Donoghue had proved her averments that she had a cause of action in law.
Was Mrs Donoghue able to claim through breach of warranty of a contract?
Mrs Donoghue was not able to claim through breach of warranty of a contract: she was not party to any contract. Therefore, she issued proceedings against Stevenson, the manufacture, which snaked its way up to the House of Lords.
What is the neighbour principle?
A neighbour was identified as someone who was so closely and directly affected by the act that one ought to have them in contemplation as being so affected when directing one's mind to the acts or omissions in question. From: neighbour principle in A Dictionary of Law ». Subjects: Law.
What is the principle of duty of care?
The principle is that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen as likely to injure one's neighbour. A neighbour was identified as someone who was so closely and directly affected by the act that one ought to have them in contemplation as being so affected when directing one's mind to the acts or omissions in question.
What was the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson?
Facts of the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson a manufacturer of a ginger beer sold ginger beer in an opaque bottle to a retailer. A boy bought a bottle of the ginger beer from the retailer and treated his girlfriend to its contents. The girl alleged that she suffered some injury as a result ...
Why did Donoghue argue that Stevenson owed a duty of care to his customers who were?
Donoghue argued that Stevenson owed a duty of care to his customers who were to consume his ginger beer, to have an effective system to clean his bottle and keep it away from snails.
What is the tort of negligence?
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100: The tort of negligence is a wrong that occurs where a person owes another a duty of care and breaches that duty, thus, causing a loss or damage as a result.
Where did May Donoghue go to eat?
May Donoghue went to the Wellmeadow Cafe at Paisley with her friend, where she ordered a Scotsman Ice-cream float made of ice cream and ginger beer. This was served by the owner of the cafe who bringing a tumbler of ice cream and ginger beer, poured some ginger beer in the ice cream from a bottle labelled D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley.
What happened to the snail in Donoghue's tumbler?
Later when Donoghue’s friend poured the remaining ginger beer in the tumbler of ice cream, a decomposed snail floated out of the bottle.
What is the duty of a manufacturer to take reasonable care of their goods?
The court stated that a manufacturer, who intends his goods to be used or consumed by others is under a duty to take reasonable care in their manufacture so that they can be used and consumed in a manner intended without causing physical damage to person or property.
What does a plaintiff have to show in a court case?
Here, the plaintiff would have to show that his case falls within a duty or situation recognized by the law; or, as is often the case, the defendant will have to persuade the court, that in the circumstances, the case does not fall within any duty situation.
