Ads
related to: donoghue and stevenson case summary search courtlegal.thomsonreuters.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
courtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords.It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.
A plaque was erected in 2012 at the Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building – built upon the land where Ellandale cottage once stood – commemorating the birthplace of Lord Atkin, placed on the 145th anniversary of his birth and the 80th anniversary of his judgement Donoghue v Stevenson. [2]
[9] It was not until the case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council [10] however, that the neighbour principle was adopted in a formal test for negligence. The case involved the negligent construction of a block of maisonettes, commissioned by the Merton London Borough Council. The flats, finished in 1972, had poorly constructed foundations ...
Donoghue v Stevenson: 1932 A.C. 532 Lord Atkin's famous statement about duty of care in the tort of negligence. Bell v Lever Brothers: 1932 A.C. 161 Mutual mistake at common law Hillas v Arcos: 1932 All E.R. 494 The court may imply terms into a contract based on the previous business dealings of the parties. Woolmington v DPP: 1935 A.C. 462 H.L.(E)
The case of Donoghue v Stevenson [8] [1932] established the modern law of negligence, laying the foundations of the duty of care and the fault principle which, (through the Privy Council), have been adopted throughout the Commonwealth. May Donoghue and her friend were in a café in Paisley. The friend bought Mrs Donoghue a ginger beer float ...
The decision was used by Mrs Donoghue in the 1932 case Donoghue v Stevenson, as a precedent to support her case. This case supported Mrs Donoghue's claim that manufacturers owed a duty of care to the people using their products, even when bought by one person, and used by another (an outside party).