Introduction
The case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) v Stevenson , a dispute originally arising in Scotland by an action brought in the Court of Session and finally heard in the House of Lords (‘UKHL’), was the landmark case in separating the law of tort from the law of contract. It was also instrumental in developing the doctrine of negligence and duty of care and helped to further establish the neighbour principal in English law.
This paper sets out: (a) the material facts of the Donoghue case; (b) the legal issues involved; (c) the decision of the court; (d) the main differences in reasoning between the majority judgment(s) and the dissenting judgment(s); (e) the ‘neighbour principle’; (f) the development of the neighbour principle both in …show more content…
Arthur Goodhart’s theory on the determination of the ratio decidendi of a case can be applied, where he sets out:
“The principle of the case is found by taking account (a) of the facts treated by the judge as material, and (b) his decision as based on them”.
This is also reflected in Halsbury’s Laws of England , although a number of scholars and judges have criticised Goodhart’s theory; inferring that difficulties arise through certain generalisations. These arguments are well summarised by Professor Lücke who raises the differential between ‘material’ and ‘facts’.
Based on the foregoing, the material facts of this case can be summarised as extrapolated from the ratios set out by Lord Atkin (page 599), Lord Thankerton (page 602) and Lord MacMillan (page 622 & 623) as follows:
• Ginger beer was manufactured by the respondent and was generally available to consumers through retailers;
• The manufacturer of the ginger beer produced aerated waters contained in bottles made of dark opaque glass, sealed with a metal cap and labelled bearing the name and address of said …show more content…
In this appeal, the Court of Session held that as the defenders neither knew: (a) that the contents of the bottle were dangerous (fraud); nor (b) were dealers in articles per se dangerous, they owed no duty to the consumers who had not contracted with them; and, per Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Ormidale**, and Lord Anderson**, no negligence on the part of the defenders or their servants had been proved and negligence could not be inferred from the mere presence of the mouse in the
The case of M’Alister (or Donoghue) v Stevenson , a dispute originally arising in Scotland by an action brought in the Court of Session and finally heard in the House of Lords (‘UKHL’), was the landmark case in separating the law of tort from the law of contract. It was also instrumental in developing the doctrine of negligence and duty of care and helped to further establish the neighbour principal in English law.
This paper sets out: (a) the material facts of the Donoghue case; (b) the legal issues involved; (c) the decision of the court; (d) the main differences in reasoning between the majority judgment(s) and the dissenting judgment(s); (e) the ‘neighbour principle’; (f) the development of the neighbour principle both in …show more content…
Arthur Goodhart’s theory on the determination of the ratio decidendi of a case can be applied, where he sets out:
“The principle of the case is found by taking account (a) of the facts treated by the judge as material, and (b) his decision as based on them”.
This is also reflected in Halsbury’s Laws of England , although a number of scholars and judges have criticised Goodhart’s theory; inferring that difficulties arise through certain generalisations. These arguments are well summarised by Professor Lücke who raises the differential between ‘material’ and ‘facts’.
Based on the foregoing, the material facts of this case can be summarised as extrapolated from the ratios set out by Lord Atkin (page 599), Lord Thankerton (page 602) and Lord MacMillan (page 622 & 623) as follows:
• Ginger beer was manufactured by the respondent and was generally available to consumers through retailers;
• The manufacturer of the ginger beer produced aerated waters contained in bottles made of dark opaque glass, sealed with a metal cap and labelled bearing the name and address of said …show more content…
In this appeal, the Court of Session held that as the defenders neither knew: (a) that the contents of the bottle were dangerous (fraud); nor (b) were dealers in articles per se dangerous, they owed no duty to the consumers who had not contracted with them; and, per Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Ormidale**, and Lord Anderson**, no negligence on the part of the defenders or their servants had been proved and negligence could not be inferred from the mere presence of the mouse in the