How Has The Range Of Duty Negligence Been Developed By Stevenson?
Question 1: How has the range of duty negligence been developed since Donoghue v Stevenson? Use case law in your answer.
It is often difficult to set down a single test to determine when a duty of care is owed to the claimant. Nevertheless, this does not mean that it is never clear when a duty of care is owed. For example, an employer owes his employees a duty of care not to cause them foreseeable, physical and psychiatric injury. A similar duty is owed to the road users by a driver and to patients by their doctor. In cases such as these, a duty of care is established by precedents. There was a lack of a general test that determines the existence of a duty of care in cases where it is unclear whether a duty is owed or not such as in Donoghue …show more content…
For minors – people under 18, are bound by contracts for “necessaries” goods and services. However, not all contracts are enforceable against minors. This was established in the Minors Contract Act 1987, Section 3 (Legislation.gov.uk, 2014). The contract made between Albert and Bill was a trading contract and not for “necessaries.” This does not legally bind Albert to the contract as a minor and it is not liable for breach. This was established in the case of Cowern v Nield [1912] where a minor ran a business selling straws and hays. The minor failed to deliver Hay under a business agreement. Because the contract was a trading contract and not for “necessaries”, he was not legally bound and not liable for breach. Similarly was seen in Mercantile Union v Ball [1937]. As long as the contracts are ordinary trading contracts, minors are not legally bound by it. Therefore, if Bill discovers that Albert is still 17, Bill cannot hold Albert liable for the …show more content…
Therefore, some actions may bring rise to criminal and civil liability.
For example, if a motorist hits a pedestrian and injures him because of the motorist’s dangerous driving, then both a crime and a civil wrong will be committed. The driver could be prosecuted for the crime of dangerous driving and will be punished if convicted. However, the pedestrian could take legal actions against the driver in the civil courts for the tort of negligence. If the driver is convicted, then the pedestrian will be compensated for
It is often difficult to set down a single test to determine when a duty of care is owed to the claimant. Nevertheless, this does not mean that it is never clear when a duty of care is owed. For example, an employer owes his employees a duty of care not to cause them foreseeable, physical and psychiatric injury. A similar duty is owed to the road users by a driver and to patients by their doctor. In cases such as these, a duty of care is established by precedents. There was a lack of a general test that determines the existence of a duty of care in cases where it is unclear whether a duty is owed or not such as in Donoghue …show more content…
For minors – people under 18, are bound by contracts for “necessaries” goods and services. However, not all contracts are enforceable against minors. This was established in the Minors Contract Act 1987, Section 3 (Legislation.gov.uk, 2014). The contract made between Albert and Bill was a trading contract and not for “necessaries.” This does not legally bind Albert to the contract as a minor and it is not liable for breach. This was established in the case of Cowern v Nield [1912] where a minor ran a business selling straws and hays. The minor failed to deliver Hay under a business agreement. Because the contract was a trading contract and not for “necessaries”, he was not legally bound and not liable for breach. Similarly was seen in Mercantile Union v Ball [1937]. As long as the contracts are ordinary trading contracts, minors are not legally bound by it. Therefore, if Bill discovers that Albert is still 17, Bill cannot hold Albert liable for the …show more content…
Therefore, some actions may bring rise to criminal and civil liability.
For example, if a motorist hits a pedestrian and injures him because of the motorist’s dangerous driving, then both a crime and a civil wrong will be committed. The driver could be prosecuted for the crime of dangerous driving and will be punished if convicted. However, the pedestrian could take legal actions against the driver in the civil courts for the tort of negligence. If the driver is convicted, then the pedestrian will be compensated for