GENERAL DUTY OF CARE 3 3.0 SUMMARY OF CASE “DONOGHUE V STEVENSON” 3 3.1 ACTIONS TAKEN BY DONOGHUE 4 3.2 THE RESPONSE OF MR. STEVENSON 5 4.0 THE IMPLICATION OF CASE 5 5.0 THE JUDGEMENT 6 6.0 THE CONCLUSION 7 7.0 REFERENCES 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION Introduction to students the Lord Atkin’s concept of general duty of care‚ summary of the case “Donoghue v Stevenson” and its implication. It will also briefly explain
Premium Duty of care Tort Law
Prof. Jeong Chun Phuoc 012014111647 Assignment 2 – Weekly Case Law Critique WEEK 2 CASE LAW ON DONOGHUE V STEVENSON (1932) Summary On August 26th 1928‚ Donoghue (plaintiff) and a friend were at a case in Glasgow‚ Scotland. Her friend ordered / purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The bottle was in an opaque bottle (dark glass material) as Donoghue was not aware of the contents. After‚ Donoghue drank some and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the
Premium Law Duty of care Tort
Question 6‚ April 2006: Solution to fe1 question Bell Computers could attach liability to either Chemical Supply or Industrial Estates under the tort of Rylands v Fletcher. Chemical Supply’s Liability Rylands v Fletcher established that a person who “for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes‚ must keep it in at his peril‚ and if he does not do so ‚ is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
Case analysis: Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11; [2009] AC 874; AER 205 The claimant of this case was the widow and daughter of Mr Drummond. They brought a claim against the council for damages in negligence‚ the essential legal complaint was that the local authority had failed to warn the deceased about the meeting before‚ and that they acted in a way that was incompatible with his right to life‚ under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Session
Premium Duty of care Tort Law
Assignment #1 Case Study: Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County Joseph Boltersdorf Dr. Patricia Drain Business Employment Law January 24‚ 2011 1. What was the legal issue in this case? In the opinion of Judge Richard C. Bosson‚ the legal issue in this case was to‚ “…decide whether an employer owes prospective employers and foreseeable third persons a duty of reasonable care not to misrepresent material facts in the course of making an employment recommendation
Premium Employment Tort Pleading
INTRODUCTION Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) This famous case established the civil law tort of negligence and obliged manufacturers to have a duty of care towards their customers. The events of the complaint took place in Scotland on Sunday evening on 26th August 1928‚ when Ms May Donoghue (Appellant) was given a bottle of ginger beer‚ purchased by a friend. The bottle was later discovered to contain a decomposing snail. Since the bottle was not of clear glass‚ Donoghue was not aware of the snail
Premium Duty of care Tort Negligence
is owed to another person. For example‚ a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on. The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case; In the Donoghue v Stevenson case‚ Ms Donoghue was bought a ginger beer by a friend‚ and drank it‚ unknown to her‚ there was a snail in that ginger beer. She wanted to claim for damages but she did not buy the ginger beer so she couldn’t. instead‚ she sued the
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
1. Delict is from the Latin ‘delictum; meaning an offence or ‘wrong’. It can be defined as a situation where the defender voluntarily commits an act or fails to act when the law imposes a duty of care and this failure to implement the legally required standard care causes the pursuer to suffer a personal injury or loss or damage. Negligence is harm which is caused unintentionally. Negligence claims arise because the defender owes what is known as a duty of care to the pursuer and‚ unfortunately
Premium Tort Tort law Duty of care
circumstances of present case. Example 1 • Considine v Shannon regional Fisheries Board [1994] Costello J: ‘principle of precedent is easy to state‚ but is difficult to apply in practice’ • The issue: after a not guilty verdict (acquittal) in the District Court‚ could an appeal could be brought to the Circuit Court by the prosecution as provided for in S. 310 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959? • The relevant precedent: The People (DPP) v O’Shea [1982]. • 3-2 majority of the SC: an appeal
Premium Law Tort Jury
Neighbor Principle The claim on tort of negligence is based on three elements‚ which are duty of care‚ breach of duty and the breach resulted in Damage. The case of Donoghue v Stevenson‚ regarding the snail in the bottle of ginger beer‚ reached the House of Lord in 1932. Lord Atkin formulated a general principle from it to govern the existence of a duty of care and this was the neighbor principle. In order for a duty of care owed there must be reasonable foresight of harm to persons whom‚ it is
Premium Duty of care Tort Negligence