Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites.

Question: Distinguish the principle of law laid down in Donoghue v. Stevenson. [BJS 2021]Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites. [Distinguish the principle of law laid down in Donoghue v. Stevenson.]AnswerDonoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] UKHL 100, is a landmark case in the field of tort law that established the legal principle of negligence. The case involved a woman, Mrs Donoghue, who suffered from gastroenteritis after consuming a bottle of ginger beer that...

Question: Distinguish the principle of law laid down in Donoghue v. Stevenson. [BJS 2021]

Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites. [Distinguish the principle of law laid down in Donoghue v. Stevenson.]

Answer

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] UKHL 100,  is a landmark case in the field of tort law that established the legal principle of negligence. The case involved a woman, Mrs Donoghue, who suffered from gastroenteritis after consuming a bottle of ginger beer that was manufactured by the defendant, Mr Stevenson. Mrs Donoghue brought a claim against Mr Stevenson, alleging that he was negligent in the manufacture of the ginger beer and that this negligence caused her illness.

The principle of law laid down in Donoghue v. Stevenson is commonly referred to as the "neighbour principle". This principle states that a person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that they can reasonably foresee would cause harm to their "neighbours." In this context, "neighbours" refers to individuals who are likely to be affected by the actions or omissions of the person in question. The principle of the neighbour principle was further expanded to include a wider range of potential claimants in Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman, (1990) UKHL 2.

The case established the principle of the duty of care that a manufacturer owes to the consumers of their products. In Donoghue v. Stevenson, the House of Lords established that a manufacturer has a duty of care to consumers who may be affected by their products. This duty of care is owed to the end consumer, as well as any other foreseeable individuals who may be affected by the use of the product.

The case also established the principle of strict liability for manufacturers. This means that a manufacturer can be held liable for any harm caused by their product, regardless of whether they were negligent in its production. In the context of strict liability, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that they took reasonable care in the manufacture of the product, or that the harm was caused by the fault of another party.

The principle of law laid down in Donoghue v. Stevenson established the neighbour principle, which requires individuals and companies to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably foreseeably cause harm to others. It also established the duty of care that manufacturers owe to consumers and the principle of strict liability for manufacturers, who can be held liable for any harm caused by their products

Mayank Shekhar

Mayank Shekhar

Mayank is an alumnus of the prestigious Faculty of Law, Delhi University. Under his leadership, Legal Bites has been researching and developing resources through blogging, educational resources, competitions, and seminars.

Next Story