MN10442 – 25th Feb
Negligence
Failure to exercise reasonable care, thereby causing injury to others or damage to property.
To establish negligence, a claimant must prove that:
Ø the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant.
Ø the defendant breached that duty of care by failing to conform to the required
standard of conduct; and
Ø the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm, injury or damage to the claimant
Donoghue vs Stevenson [1932] – snail in a bottle case
out to lunch with her friend (her friend took her out)
a decomposed snail came out of the bottle causing illness
can’t sue the café owner as a friend bought it for her. The friend could sue as she’s in
the contract but isn’t ill
she sees Stevenson’s name on the bottle and decides to sue him saying he should
have been more careful
kept losing but kept appealing for 4 years
does the manufacturer have a duty of care to the consumer?
3 v 2 in the house of lords she won the first point that the manufacturer owed a duty
of care
Still took the L
The neighbour principle
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably
foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour…
Your neighbour?
… persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably
to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to
the acts or omissions that are called in question”.
Three tests
1. Foreseeability – was the damage or injury to the claimant foreseeable
2. Proximity – was the relationship between the claimant and the defendant sufficiently
proximate.
3. Just and reasonable – to impose a duty and care (Caparo)
Foreseeability of harm & Proximity
• was the damage or injury to the claimant foreseeable
• was the relationship between the claimant and the defendant sufficiently proximate
• home office v Dorset yacht co [1970] – group of young juvie centre for badly
behaved youths the department decide to go on a trip to Bram sea island one
Negligence
Failure to exercise reasonable care, thereby causing injury to others or damage to property.
To establish negligence, a claimant must prove that:
Ø the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant.
Ø the defendant breached that duty of care by failing to conform to the required
standard of conduct; and
Ø the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm, injury or damage to the claimant
Donoghue vs Stevenson [1932] – snail in a bottle case
out to lunch with her friend (her friend took her out)
a decomposed snail came out of the bottle causing illness
can’t sue the café owner as a friend bought it for her. The friend could sue as she’s in
the contract but isn’t ill
she sees Stevenson’s name on the bottle and decides to sue him saying he should
have been more careful
kept losing but kept appealing for 4 years
does the manufacturer have a duty of care to the consumer?
3 v 2 in the house of lords she won the first point that the manufacturer owed a duty
of care
Still took the L
The neighbour principle
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably
foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour…
Your neighbour?
… persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably
to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to
the acts or omissions that are called in question”.
Three tests
1. Foreseeability – was the damage or injury to the claimant foreseeable
2. Proximity – was the relationship between the claimant and the defendant sufficiently
proximate.
3. Just and reasonable – to impose a duty and care (Caparo)
Foreseeability of harm & Proximity
• was the damage or injury to the claimant foreseeable
• was the relationship between the claimant and the defendant sufficiently proximate
• home office v Dorset yacht co [1970] – group of young juvie centre for badly
behaved youths the department decide to go on a trip to Bram sea island one
