DETAILED IRAC CASE BRIEFS (TORT LAW
1. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Issue
Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to a consumer who did not purchase the
product directly and had no contractual relationship with the manufacturer.
Rule
Lord Atkin established the neighbour principle:
A person owes a duty of care to those who are so closely and directly affected by their
actions that they ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.
This case created the foundation of modern negligence law.
Application
• Mrs Donoghue consumed ginger beer purchased by a friend.
• The bottle was opaque, preventing inspection.
• A decomposed snail was inside the bottle, causing her illness.
• She sued the manufacturer, even though she had no contract with them.
• The court held that the manufacturer should have reasonably foreseen that
failure to ensure product safety could harm the ultimate consumer.
• The relationship between manufacturer and consumer was sufficiently close to
impose a duty of care.
Conclusion
The manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer.
This case established that negligence liability can arise without a contract, based purely
on foreseeability and proximity.
⭐ 2. Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)
Issue
, Whether auditors owe a duty of care to investors relying on audited financial statements
for investment decisions.
Rule
The court created the Caparo three‑part test for duty of care:
1. Foreseeability of harm
2. Proximity between parties
3. Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty
Application
• Caparo purchased shares in a company based on audited accounts.
• The accounts were inaccurate, and Caparo suffered financial loss.
• The auditors prepared the accounts for the company, not for investors.
• The relationship lacked sufficient proximity because the auditors did not know
Caparo or intend their statements to guide investment decisions.
• Imposing liability would expose auditors to unlimited claims from unknown
investors, which was not fair or reasonable.
Conclusion
No duty of care existed.
This case refined the duty of care test and limited liability for economic loss.
⭐ 3. Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957)
Issue
What standard of care applies to professionals, particularly medical practitioners?
Rule
The Bolam test:
A professional is not negligent if their conduct aligns with a responsible body of
professional opinion, even if other professionals disagree.
Application
• The claimant underwent electroconvulsive therapy without muscle relaxants.
1. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Issue
Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to a consumer who did not purchase the
product directly and had no contractual relationship with the manufacturer.
Rule
Lord Atkin established the neighbour principle:
A person owes a duty of care to those who are so closely and directly affected by their
actions that they ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.
This case created the foundation of modern negligence law.
Application
• Mrs Donoghue consumed ginger beer purchased by a friend.
• The bottle was opaque, preventing inspection.
• A decomposed snail was inside the bottle, causing her illness.
• She sued the manufacturer, even though she had no contract with them.
• The court held that the manufacturer should have reasonably foreseen that
failure to ensure product safety could harm the ultimate consumer.
• The relationship between manufacturer and consumer was sufficiently close to
impose a duty of care.
Conclusion
The manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer.
This case established that negligence liability can arise without a contract, based purely
on foreseeability and proximity.
⭐ 2. Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)
Issue
, Whether auditors owe a duty of care to investors relying on audited financial statements
for investment decisions.
Rule
The court created the Caparo three‑part test for duty of care:
1. Foreseeability of harm
2. Proximity between parties
3. Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty
Application
• Caparo purchased shares in a company based on audited accounts.
• The accounts were inaccurate, and Caparo suffered financial loss.
• The auditors prepared the accounts for the company, not for investors.
• The relationship lacked sufficient proximity because the auditors did not know
Caparo or intend their statements to guide investment decisions.
• Imposing liability would expose auditors to unlimited claims from unknown
investors, which was not fair or reasonable.
Conclusion
No duty of care existed.
This case refined the duty of care test and limited liability for economic loss.
⭐ 3. Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957)
Issue
What standard of care applies to professionals, particularly medical practitioners?
Rule
The Bolam test:
A professional is not negligent if their conduct aligns with a responsible body of
professional opinion, even if other professionals disagree.
Application
• The claimant underwent electroconvulsive therapy without muscle relaxants.
