THE DUTY OF CARE

The Development Of The Duty Of Care In The Case Law Since Donoghue V Stevenson [1932] AC 562

The Development Of The Duty Of Care In The Case Law Since Donoghue V Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Introduction

Negligence is considered as an enormous subject, and all of its parts are interrelated. It is sub-divided into four parts that include duty, breach, causation and remoteness, and defenses (Ackerman 2005: 91). Negligence also involved various elements, other than those mentioned above, such as economic loss, psychiatric damage, product liability, and any other damages. It shows that negligence has become perhaps the most essential and wide-reaching subject across the globe (Ashford 2007: 23).

Duty of care is a critical element in the subject of negligence, which shows not only that the defendant under a duty towards the claimant must be careful, but also that the person was not able to achieve the necessary standard of care and that failure has caused the damage. Also, the damage was not too remote a consequence of the act (Ackerman 2005: 92).

It should be noted that the duty of care is about relationships between people i.e. it must be evident that the defendant stood in the necessary relationship with the claimant because he is obligatory to care for the other person. This kind of relationship is often referred to as 'proximity'. Proximity is defined as the level of closeness of relationship, which is necessary for a particular kind of damage (Dobbs 2001: 49).

It is essential to show that some damage was foreseeable to a foreseeable claimant, there was a close relationship between the parties, and it was reasonable to impose a duty.

Discussion

Donoghue v Stevenson (26 August 1928) began when Mrs. Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend who bought a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream. The bottle was made of the opaque glass. Mrs. Donoghue drank some of this and her friend poured the remainder of the bottle into the glass. This time, she saw a decomposed snail floated out of the bottle, and she claimed that she suffered shock and gastroenteritis. She claimed £500 for damages from the manufacturer of the ginger beer, Stevenson of Paisley. She claimed that the manufacturer was liable for the negligence to the person who hot injured by that product; however, the defendant claimed that there could be no liability since there was no contract between him and the pursuer. The court held that such defendant could be liable to such a claimant for the negligence caused by him (Dobbs 2001: 246).

The significant element in this case was the requirement of contractual privities between the two parties. Manufacturer was not liable for the damage caused to the other party as mentioned in law unless they had a direct agreement with the affected party; they had illegally concealed any defect in the product, or manufactured products that were injurious to health of any person. Mrs. Donoghue did not meet any of these criteria; therefore, the ...