Name: Sayda Bibi Karam Zahara

Roll no: BL-1560

Subject: Law of Torts
Submitted to: Ms. Romana Ahmed

DONOGHUE VS STEVENSON CASE [1932]

INTRODUCTION
The year the story took place is 1928. the location is paisly near Glasgow. Mrs.
Donoghue lived in Glasgow on 26 August 1928 A.C 562.she travelled from her home city to
paisley once there. She with her friend went to a restaurant for refreshment. Apart from
some other refreshment, her friend ordered for a bottle of ginger beer as well as an ice
cream manufactured by the defendant. the bottle of ginger beer was sealed & of opaque
glasses. After the contents of the blotter were saved to the plaintiff & after she had taken
that & when remaining ginger glass, the decomposed remains of a snail floated out. The
defendant the manufacturer of ginger beer in an opaque bottle. the retailer resolid the
bottle to other person who gave it a women of his acquaintance. the decomposed remains
of a snail found in the bottle of ginger beer might have entered into the bottle at the time of
filling of the bottle of ginger beer. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant.
she was made ill by what she had seen. It’s undoubtedly a fact that she indeed
received medical treatment from a doctor for 3 days after the unfortunate event. The
treatment was for gastro enteritis. This is a very serious illness of the bowels. Your stomach
hurts & became swollen.it can last for weeks or months & is very painful. She suffered alot.
This is what she contended anyway. Three weeks elapsed & she received further treatment
in a hospital in Glasgow. She also made an additional claim. She claimed she had suffered
from “nervous shock” Mrs. Donoghue felt that she had been subjected to lot of pain &
suffering. She thought she deserved justice. She decided to claim damages to compensate
her for all her troubles. Damages are of course the most common remedy. But she had a
huge problem.
JUDGMENT
Trial court: the plaintiff stated that she became seriously ill in consequence of using the
ginger beer, therefore the defendant manufacture of ginger beer is liable for negligence.
The defendant contested the suit & field his written statement that the plaintiff must
the bottle after due scrutiny. It was also contended on behalf of defendant that after
manufacturer isn’t liable for any negligence.
House of Lords: Being aggreed by the finding of the trial court the plaintiff preferred an
appeal before the house of lords against the judgement of the trial court.
 On behalf of the appellate. It was contended that bottle contained the decomposed
remains of a snail which were not detected until the greater part of the bottle had been
consumed.it was held that in order to render a manufacturer liable to the ultimate
purchasar, it’s necessary that the the article must reach that purchaser in the form in which
it leaves the manufacturer without opportunity for intermediate examination.it was further
held that there was of course no contractual duty on the part of the manufacturer towards
the appellant but a majority of the house of lords held that he onward her a duty to make
care that the bottle didn’t contain noxious Matter & that he was liable if that duty was
broken. “ lord Atkin observed that the nature of the thing many very well call for different
degree of care & the person dailinh with it may well contemple person as being with the
sphere of his duty to take care who couldn’t be sufficiently proximite with less dangerous
goods so that no only the degree of care but the range of person to whom a duty is owned
may be extended.
PRINCIPLE OF LAW LAID DOWN
There’s negligence if there’s a breach of duty of care.in order to render a
manufacturer liable to the ultimate purchaser, it’s necessary that the article must reach that
purchaser in the form in which it learner manufacturer without opportunity for
intermediate exam.

CAPARO INDUSTRIES PIC VS DICKMAN 1990

INTRODUCTION
Shareholders in a company bought more share & then made a successful take-over
bid for the company after studying the audited accounts prepared by the defendants. They
later regretted the move & sued the auditors, claiming that they had relied on accounts
which had shown a sizeable surplus then the deficit that was in fact the case. Their case
failed
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The house of lords (now the supreme court) held that the auditors owed no duty of
care to the claimant since company accounts aren’t prepared for the purpose of people
taking over a company & cannot then be relied on by them for such purposes. The court
also developed the three_ stage test for determining when a duty of care is owned.
1. Firstly, it should be considered whether the consequences of the defendant’s
behavior were reasonably foreseeable.
2. Secondly, the court should consider whether there’s sufficient legal proximity
between the parties for a duty to be imposed.
3. Lastly, the court should ask whether or not its fair, just & reasonable in all the
circumstances to impose duty of care.
SIGNIFICANCE
1. At one point lord Atkin’s test was simplified by lord wilberforce in anns v merton LBC
(1978) into two-part test.
  is there sufficient proximity between defendant & claimed to impose a prima
facie duty?
 if so, does the judge consider that there are any policy grounds which would
prevent such a duty being imposed.
2. The anns test was always seen as too broad because:
 it creates a general duty based only on proximity.
 it gives judges too much power to decide on policy alone.
3. A long line of cases expressed dissatisfaction with the anns test e.g Governors of
peabody donation fund v sir lindsay parkinson (1985) Caparo v Dick
 (1990)the test was overruled in murphy v brentwood Dc (1990)
4. the three_part test was approved in murphy v brentwood district council (1991) 2 All
ER (908), which itself overruled Anns v merton london borough council (1978) Ac 728
, which had produced a simple two- part test for established a duty. This test was
heavily based on the policy & had led to muchh criticism from judges.