Slides in this set
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Mrs Donoghue bought a bottle of ginger beer by her
friend. She drank part of it then found it contained a dead
and decomposing snail at the bottom of it. As a result she
became ill. She could not sue the shopkeeper under the
law of contract since she had not bought the ginger beer.
She started a case against the manufacturers of the
ginger beer in being negligent in not making sure that
bottles were properly cleaned.
She won her case as Lord Atkin introduced the `DUTY OF CARE' to your
`NEIGHBOURS' and the tort of negligence was developed here.
Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)
This case expanded the test for duty of care. They are
wider than the neighbour test. It has to be shown that:
· Damage was foreseeable
· There is sufficiently `proximate' relationship between the
parties (neighbour test)
· Is it just and reasonably to impose a duty of care
Bourhill v Young (1943)
A motorcyclist crashed into a car and was killed. Mrs
Bourhill, who was eight months pregnant, heard the crash
but did not see it, only the blood from the accident on the
road; she suffered shock and lost her baby. She sued the
motorcyclist's estate, claiming he owed her a duty of
Held: She was NOT owed a duty of care; she was not his `neighbour'. (the
motorcyclist could not reasonably anticipate that she would be affected by her negligent
Paris v Stepney Borough Council(1951)
The defendants knew that the claimant, an employee,
was blind in one eye. They failed to provide him with
protective goggles for his work and he was blinded when
metal chip hit his good eye. Employers argued it was not
usual to provide goggles for this type of work.
Held: the defendants knew their employee was blind in one eye, they had to take
a GREATER DUTY OF CARE for his safety than for normal employees.
Roe v Minister of Health (1954)
The claimant became paralysed because anaesthetics
given to him during a operation was contaminated by
disinfectant. The anaesthetics was kept in glass ampoules
(small containers) which were stored un disinfectant. The
disinfectant had got into the anaesthetics through
invisible cracks in the glass. At the time of the operation
in 1947, this risk was unknown.
Held: Claimant had not proved that the hospital authorities had broken their duty
of care as the RISK WAS UNKNOWN and therefore he could not claim for