Three Important Cases of Liability

Case 1: Donoghue Vs. Stevenson (1932), Duty of Care

Mrs. Donoghue suffered as a result of defect in the product (Ginger Beer) bought by a friend. It contained remains of a decomposed snail. As the law stood then Mrs. Donoghue could not sue the vendor as there was no contractual relationship between them. Her only recourse was to sue the manufacturer on the grounds that the manufacturer owes a duty of care to subsequent users. Claimant: Mrs. Donoghue Defendant: Stevenson Statement of the Case: Tort: Duty of Care Type of Liability: Case Decided By: House of Lords Case Decision: Stevenson had to pay compensation to Mrs. Donoghue and UK law was amended. Law before the Case: Buyer be Aware Law after the Case: Duty of the Care on Manufacturer. Narrow Rule, Neighbour Definition Rule: Narrow Rule New Law Proposed: Neighbour Principle, you must not injure your neighbour. In law, the persons who are so closely associated and directly affected by my act. Circumstances: Duty in law to Take Care. 1. 2. The likelihood of causing injury or damage must reasonably be foreseeable, and The person injured or whose property is damaged must be in close proximity to the action or conduct called into question.

Foresee ability: Considering all the circumstances and facts, would a reasonable person, faced with the same situation, have identified risk of injury or damage? Proximity: It is little difficult to establish proximity. If a road worker cuts the power cable depriving people of the power causing life and business difficulties. If A injures B in front of C and C is suffered by Psychiatric illness witnessing the incident, how easy is to establish proximity?

Three Important Cases of Liability

Case 2: Rayland Vs. Fletcher(1968), Nuisance

Mr. Rayland suffered as a result of an extraordinary large reservoir of water stored at the premises of Mr. Fletcher who engaged an independent contractor. The water escaped the reservoir entering Mines of neighbour Mr. Rayland damaging the mines. As the law stood then, only an independent contract could be sued, contractor was not in a position to pay the damages, Mr. Rayland decided to sue the neighbour Mr. Fletcher. Claimant: Mr. Rayland Defendant: Mr. Fletcher Statement of the Case: Tort: Nuisance Type of Liability: Case Decided By: House of Lords Case Decision: Mr. Fletcher had to pay compensation to Mr. Rayland and UK law was amended. Law before the Case: It is the duty of Independent contractor to bear the loss. Law after the Case: If any extraordinary stock is compiled artificially, it is the responsibility of the owner to save others from loss. Rule: Rayland Vs Fletcher New Law Proposed: Law can be applied only if dangerous item is brought on the premises and does not exist there naturally. Stack of extraordinary size could damage others property creating responsibility on the owner of the property even if independent contractor is engaged. Dangerous thing / Extra Ordinary stock must have damaged others property. Circumstances: Duty in law to Take Care.

Three Important Cases of Liability

Case 3: Hedley Byrne Vs Heller & Partners (1963), Negligent Misstatement

Mrs. Donoghue suffered as a result of defect in the product (Ginger Beer) bought by a friend. It contained remains of a decomposed snail. As the law stood then Mrs. Donoghue could not sue the vendor as there was no contractual relationship between them. Her only recourse was to sue the manufacturer on the grounds that the manufacturer owes a duty of care to subsequent users. Claimant: Hedley Byrne Defendant: Heller & Partners Statement of the Case: Tort: Negligent Misstatement Type of Liability: Case Decided By: House of Lords Case Decision: Stevenson had to pay compensation to Mrs. Donoghue and UK law was amended. Law before the Case: Buyer be Aware Law after the Case: Duty of the Care on Manufacturer. Narrow Rule, Neighbour Definition Rule: Narrow Rule New Law Proposed: Neighbour Principle, you must not injure your neighbour. In law, the persons who are so closely associated and directly affected by my act. Circumstances: Duty in law to Take Care. 1. 2. The likelihood of causing injury or damage must reasonably be foreseeable, and The person injured or whose property is damaged must be in close proximity to the action or conduct called into question.

Foresee ability: Considering all the circumstances and facts, would a reasonable person, faced with the same situation, have identified risk of injury or damage? Proximity: It is little difficult to establish proximity. If a road worker cuts the power cable depriving people of the power causing life and business difficulties. If A injures B in front of C and C is suffered by Psychiatric illness witnessing the incident, how easy is to establish proximity?