Evolution of Duty of Care: A Comprehensive Examination of Legal Precedents

The concept of duty of care, primarily established in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, has evolved, extending its reach and implications in subsequent legal decisions. Donoghue v Stevenson stands as a pivotal ruling in both Scots delict law and English tort law, rendered by the House of Lords. This landmark case established the foundational principles of negligence, delineating the circumstances under which one individual would be deemed to owe a duty of care to another.

Commonly referred to as the "Paisley snail" or the "snail in the bottle" case, the case revolved around Mrs. Donoghue's consumption of a bottle of ginger beer in a Paisley, Renfrewshire café. Unfortunately, the bottle contained a deceased snail. Mrs. Donoghue fell ill, prompting her to file a lawsuit against the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson.

In its judgment, the House of Lords affirmed that the manufacturer had a duty of care towards Mrs. Donoghue. This duty was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that neglecting to ensure the safety of the product could result in harm to consumers. The ruling in Donoghue v Stevenson essentially laid the groundwork for the modern understanding of negligence, shaping the legal landscape surrounding the duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers.

?

Expanding Duty of Care:

1. Brown v Cotterill (1934):

In the Brown v Cotterill case, the duty of care extended beyond manufacturers to include erectors. The defendants, responsible for erecting a tombstone in a churchyard, were found negligent when the tombstone fell and injured a lawful visitor. Lawrence J. emphasized the duty owed to every member of the public lawfully present, establishing a precedent for duty of care extending to those who create or contribute to potential dangers.

?

2. Duty of Care in Erecting Structures:

?The application of the duty of care in erecting structures was further exemplified in a case where a compound wall posed a danger to the public. The court held that the defendants, aware of the potential danger to users of a latrine, had a duty to take reasonable care. Neglecting to address existing defects or prevent the wall from falling constituted a breach of duty, showcasing the extension of responsibility to prevent foreseeable harm.

?

3. Manson v Williams:

?The case of Manson v Williams focused on the duty of care imposed on manufacturers. The plaintiff established negligence when a defective cold chisel manufactured by the defendants caused the injury. This case highlighted the obligation of manufacturers to ensure the safety of their products and emphasized the burden on the plaintiff to demonstrate the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care in the manufacturing process.

?

4. Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation:

?In this case, the focus shifted to the duty of care exercised by governmental bodies. The licensing authority imposed a condition restricting the admission of children under fifteen to cinema performances, leading to a legal challenge. The court introduced the "Wednesbury test," stating that a decision must be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. This principle became pivotal in determining the limits of court intervention in administrative decisions.

?

Application of the Wednesbury Test:

?The application of the Wednesbury test in cases involving governmental bodies. The X v Bedfordshire County Council case affirmed the use of the Wednesbury test to assess the liability of governmental bodies for negligence. Lord Browne-Wilkinson emphasized that a decision must be so unreasonable as to fall outside the statutory discretion granted to the authority.

?

Conclusion:

?The duty of care has undergone significant expansion, encompassing manufacturers, erectors, and governmental bodies. Legal precedents such as Brown v Cotterill, Manson v Williams, and Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation have shaped the landscape of duty of care, providing a framework for evaluating responsibilities and liabilities in diverse scenarios.

Thank you for your attention.

Please subscribe, comment, and contribute. Let's build stronger contractual foundations together!

#construction

#courts #arbitration

#duty of care