Donoghue v Stevenson.docx

2019

This paper represents a deep analysis of one of the most famous cases of Western law: Donoghue v. Stevenson. Many legal principles arose from the ruling of the House of Lords: privity of contract, duty of care and, above all, negligence clearly considered as a tort. Moreover, the document contains comparisons with other jurisdictions pertaining the neighbour principle. Finally, the environmental problem of oil spills in Nigeria is dealt with legal postulates coming from the Donoghue case, purporting to stress the fundamental right to a clean environment for all human beings.

As was confirmed by the Courts the tort law, including tort of negligence emerged in Donoghue case, is an effective tool to call the oil companies to responsibility for the environmental damage. As can be inferred from Court decisions, the common law remedies, albeit absorbed by statute law or operating apart from it, effectively deal with damage caused by oil spills. In addition to Rylands v Fletcher this common law arsenal includes also neighbour principle emerged in Donoghue case in UK and spread all over the Commonwealth.

Public Space: The Journal of Law and Social …, 2010

The Cambridge Law Journal, 2008

Few commentators would express satisfaction with the current state of the tort of negligence. The case-law is unpredictable, lacks clarity and the tests provided applied in an inconsistent manner. It is easy to blame such uncertainty on the desire of the judges to achieve 'justice'. In White v Jones, Lord Goff accepted that 'The question therefore arises whether it is possible to give effect in law to the strong impulse for practical justice. .. For this to be achieved. .. the court will have to fashion "an effective remedy".' 1 Lord Bingham in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (t/a GH Dovener & Son) demonstrated that such an approach is far from unique. 2 In so doing, the judiciary demonstrate a willingness to look far beyond the case itself and consider its wider implications to society as a whole. 3 Yet, in so doing, recognition is still made of the need for such decisions to exist within a doctrinal framework. In Fairchild, Lord Nicholls stated: 'To be acceptable the law must be coherent. It must be principled. The basis on which one case, or one type of case, is distinguished from another should be transparent and capable of identification. When a decision departs from principles normally applied, the basis for doing so must be rational and justifiable if the decision is to avoid the reproach that hard cases make bad law'. 4 The question remains whether the current state of the tort of negligence is a natural result of its breadth as a tort or represents 'the disintegration of the modern law'. In his book, Beever asserts the latter view. In a forceful thesis, he argues that the current lack of transparency, uncertainty and, he claims, illegitimate assertion by individual judges of policy concerns, can be avoided. One simply needs to 'rediscover' the principled basis of the tort. To do so he focuses on five "great" cases:

[2011] Journal of Personal Injury Law 249

Chandler v Cape plc decided that a parent company was liable for asbestos injuries of an insolvent subsidiary's employee, because the parent could exercise control over the subsidiary. This article recounts the case’s facts, assesses the reasoning and elaborates the potential implications. It posits that this decision, aside from being based on sound authority, is consistent both with limited liability as a restricted exception to the law of obligations, only justified so far as creditors may truly and freely opt out, and with the general law of tort, which holds people liable for the actions of third parties when they may exercise control. Four main questions over the implications are raised: can controlling parties be liable for any torts? Can any directors or shareholders be liable? What possibilities are there for tort claimants abroad to sue UK multinational parent companies? And how far beyond shareholding might a controlling relationship extend?

Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 2011

Copyright (c) 2011 Alberta Law Review Alberta Law Review. July, 2011. 49 Alberta L. Rev. 245. LENGTH: 3784 words THE SNAIL AND THE GINGER BEER: THE SINGULAR CASE OF DONOGHUE V STEVENSON, MATTHEW ...

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2003

The present article investigates the epistemic and evaluative linguistic patterns occurring in the United States court opinion issued in a widely known case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., concerning liability for the toxic pharmaceutical product. The pharmaceutical involved in the case was known under the market name Bendectin.

Alta. L. Rev.

This article considers the effect of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada In Garland v. Consumers' Gas. The author suggests that Iacobucci J. 's judgment replaces the traditional common law approach, which relies on the presence of unjust factors, with a unique version of the traditional civil law approach, which relies on the absence of juristic reasons. That decision is criticized as being contrary to precedent and principle. The author then suggests how, with slight modifications. the new test of restitullonary liability may be made more workable a11d coherent. Cet article examine /es effets de la recente decision de la Cour supreme du Canada dans /'a.flaire Garl1111d c. Consumers' Gas. l 'a11te11r lalsse entendre que le jugement de Jacobucci J. ,emplace la demarche traditionnelle de droit commun reposant sur la presence defacteurs inj11s1es par une version unique de la demarche tradlllonnel/e de droll commun reposant sur I "absence de raisons judlciel/es. la decision a fail /'objet de critiques comme etant contra ire aux precedents et principes. L 'auteur laisse ensuile entendre de quel/e maniere, grdce a de legeres modifications, le nouveau test de la responsabiltte par restitution peut s 'averer plus raisonnable et plus coherent.

Tort Choice of Law Rules are the unavoidable tools available to a Court faced with the adjudication of justice in private international law matters. The forum court in actions involving torts committed abroad, must decide the applicable law to employ in the determination of the rights and liabilities of the respective parties. Different jurisdictions use different rules. But the more common approaches are that either the lex loci delicti commissi (The law of the place where the tort was committed) or the lex fori (the law of the forum) must be chosen; or that these two laws must be combined under the concurrent liability rule. A newer view is the proper law approach, that is, a foreign tort should be adjudged according to the law of the place with which it has the most significant connection. The foregoing choice of law tort rules have been espoused and adopted in a myriad judicial decisions and writings. Noteworthy amongst the cases are four major ones from which the rules have since crystallized. They are: Phillips v. Eyre; Boys v. Chaplin; Benson v. Ashiru and Babcock v. Jackson. These four cross continental juridical musketeers, it may be said, form the backbone of choice of law tort rules study. The first two cases - Phillips v. Eyre and Boys v. Chaplin are authorities for the English common law position. The third case Benson v. Ashiru is a Nigerian case, which basically is an adaptation of the rule in Phillips v. Eyre to the Nigerian situation. The last case - Babcock v. Jackson states the American position. All these various approaches and choice of law rules have been employed by the different jurisdictions to the tort choice of law problem. Each being adopted for different reasons, to wit: certainty, predictability, and ease of application. As well as flexibility and justice. No single rule per se has been able to satisfy any (or all) of these elements without compromising one or all the others. The lex fori or lex loci delicti rule, alone or combined in the double actionability rule may satisfy certainty but compromise the justice that comes with flexibility. While the proper law approach may satisfy the expectations of justice of the parties, it compromises the certainty and ease of application that comes with all the other inflexible and rigid mechanical rules (viz the lex fori, lex loci delicti and double actionability rules). Perhaps what is needed therefore, is a super-rule, which would be an admix of three rules (viz, the lex fori, lex loci delicti and lex propria). The quint-essential all-purpose tort choice of law rule. Having the lex fori and lex loci delicti combined at the core acting as a general rule, while the lex propria, omni-patiently orbits the periphery, as an electron round the nucleus of an atom [comprising proton (lex fori) and neutron (lex loci delicti)], ready to meet the demands of justice as a flexible exception, in so called difficult cases. The writer believes this would finish what the law lords started in Boys v. Chaplin. The maintenance of certainty through the general rule in Philips v. Eyre and safeguarding the interest of justice in special cases through the proper law approach.