Donoghue and Stevenson was the case that changed everything. Before this case, a contract could not impose limited liability on a stranger. This meant that a third party who suffered loss and damage as a result of a breach of warranty in a contract between two other parties could not sue. For there to be negligence there must be: a duty of care between the parties, a breach of that duty of care, damage which was reasonably foreseeable and a casual link between the breach and the damage.
Then in Donoghue v Stevenson , May Donoghue went with a friend to a cafe called The Wellmeadow Cafe. Her friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream. The ginger beer was in a bottle that was made out of opaque glass. Mr Minchella who owned the …show more content…
Dickman, the plaintiffs were shareholders and after the accounts which were audited by the defendants were published, they purchased further shares. They alleged that they had relied on the accounts for 1984 which should have shown a loss rather than a profit. The House of Lords held that the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs. There was insufficient proximity between them and the accounts were produced for the purpose of informing members in oder to assist in the directing of the company. They rejected the interpretation of Anns saying: Negligence law should no longer be developed in such an unrestrained manner where a duty of care could be recognised in every case based on general principle and without regard to the other cases. The Judicial Committee developed the ‘incremental approach’. Lord Bridge stated that the addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in ant situation should exist between the party owing a duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood and that the situation should be one in which the court considers fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope on the one party for the benefit of the other. The House of Lords adopted a different approach overruling Anns. The House of Lords Held that a duty of care may now be imposed if three requirements are satisfied : 1) the plaintiff must be reasonably foreseeable; 2) there must be a relationship or proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant; and 3) it must be fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances for a duty of care to be imposed on the
Then in Donoghue v Stevenson , May Donoghue went with a friend to a cafe called The Wellmeadow Cafe. Her friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream. The ginger beer was in a bottle that was made out of opaque glass. Mr Minchella who owned the …show more content…
Dickman, the plaintiffs were shareholders and after the accounts which were audited by the defendants were published, they purchased further shares. They alleged that they had relied on the accounts for 1984 which should have shown a loss rather than a profit. The House of Lords held that the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs. There was insufficient proximity between them and the accounts were produced for the purpose of informing members in oder to assist in the directing of the company. They rejected the interpretation of Anns saying: Negligence law should no longer be developed in such an unrestrained manner where a duty of care could be recognised in every case based on general principle and without regard to the other cases. The Judicial Committee developed the ‘incremental approach’. Lord Bridge stated that the addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in ant situation should exist between the party owing a duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood and that the situation should be one in which the court considers fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope on the one party for the benefit of the other. The House of Lords adopted a different approach overruling Anns. The House of Lords Held that a duty of care may now be imposed if three requirements are satisfied : 1) the plaintiff must be reasonably foreseeable; 2) there must be a relationship or proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant; and 3) it must be fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances for a duty of care to be imposed on the