Request a FREE quote now!Order Now
Task: Analyse a landmark UK case of your choice and discuss how it has had an impact on how the law works today.
The readings from Kaplan (2019) that were taken into account for the Donoghue v. Stevenson case study show that the UK legal system appears to be one of those that is based on precedent and case law. Over the past 100 years, the court has a history of rendering judgments that may have an impact on how law is currently practised and may develop in the future. However, there have been a number of landmark rulings that have changed the UK legal system. The case study of "The Paisley Snail and Duty of Care - Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis" was highlighted in this study, along with a discussion of its implications for current legal developments.
Identifying and talking about pertinent laws
The UK Corporate Governance Code and the Insolvency Act of 1986 appear to be two pieces of legislation that the law of the UK uses to manage firms that are created in accordance with the Companies Act of 2006. A key legal vehicle for organising and managing a business appears to be an organisation, according to European Union court rulings and Directives. Based on the relevant case study, it has been determined that negligence is a legal term that first appeared in 1932, when the "House of Lords decision" set forth the requirements for when someone owes another person a duty of care. As a result, the study of the relevant Donoghue v. Stevenson case has produced an important case for the Western Law (Baskind et al., 2019). The primary decision in this case established a civil law tort for negligence and required businesses to uphold their duty of care to customers. It has been established that manufacturers have a duty of care to the final consumers of their products if it appears to be impossible to detect the flaws prior to obtaining the items. Analysis of the Donoghue v. Stevenson case (1932) The House of Lords' decision in UKHL 100 is a seminal one for both English tort law and Scots delict law.
In the examination of the Donoghue v. Stevenson case, Donoghue has been viewed as a useful test case for determining whether a person had a claim rather than was owed compensation for any losses suffered. According to Devenney (2016), there must have been a recognised contractual relationship in order for the legislation based on negligence to apply at the time in question. As a result, it was determined that the case's outcomes established specific legal principles.
First of all, the House of Lords decision confirmed that this negligence constitutes a tort. This is similar to how a plaintiff might do a social act against a responder if the respondents' negligence results in both property loss and injury to the plaintiff. Donoghue can be excused for not having a contract with Stevenson because it was well known that he would not buy the beverage. But according to Lord Atkin's judgement, Stevenson, who is well-known, is still in charge of maintaining the quality of the output.
According to the reasoning of the Donoghue v. Stevenson case, producers have a responsibility to take reasonable care of their customers when it comes to their products. According to Lord Atkins' ratio decendi, which states that manufacturers have a duty to their customers to use reasonable care when purchasing the things they make and sell (Twigg-Flesner et al., 2016). As a result, the precedent led to the development of forms in accordance with the principles of legislation that can protect consumers from tainted goods. However, these specific safeguards have been formalised in laws like the Trade Practices Act, where they first appeared as common law (Commonwealth 1974).
the neighbourly rule
"Donoghue v. Stevenson case analysis created Lord Atkin's contentious neighbour concept" is the specific instance. Due to this, the tort for carelessness, the tortfeasor, and an immediate party are all infinite (Pratt, 2020). This has ultimately led to the question of how people can be harmed by careless conduct. Donoghue received the ginger beer as a gift rather than having it purchased. As opposed to being a party to the contract, Donohue appeared to be more of a neighbour. In light of the aforementioned principle, Atkin stated that "one must have taken reasonable care for avoiding the omissions and acts that can be reasonably predicted and might be likely for damaging the neighbour." As a result, the question of "who within the law looks to be the neighbour" emerges. According to Dyer (2019), this answer comprises of the people who were in mind while omissions and acts were considered and who have been directly and closely touched by the act.
The relevance of the particular case study was understood to establish the immovable Queensland negligence law as a concept of duty of care. One may, however, also challenge the law of negligence. For instance, based on the plaintiff's cause of action, the defendant must attempt to invalidate one of the fundamentals. However, according to Mohan and Raj (2019), the defendant might present any proof that they may not have had a responsibility to the plaintiff and that they exercised reasonable care without endangering the plaintiff's losses or those of similar third parties.
As a result, recent data suggests that firms may be vulnerable to allegations of professional negligence. One of the errors can harm a client's reputation, cost them money, and even result in some physical injury (Argenziano and Weeds, 2019). Nevertheless, corporations finally provide advise in a manner that is acknowledged to be vulnerable. According to the NHS Litigation Authority, those who engage in the business and medical sectors must be careful and cautious. This is due to the fact that medical negligence's consequences may now be more severe and fall within the umbrella of financial liability, criminal culpability, and even disciplinary action.
As a result, the case study of "The Paisley Snail and Duty of Care - Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis" has been analysed in this study, taking into account its effects on legislation currently in effect. The current study has also covered the laws, or rather the legal principles, of the relevant case study. As a result, the law on negligence has recently been deemed relevant and is still in effect in some areas of the UK.
Argenziano, R. and Weeds, H., 2019. Bias and negligence with freedom of information. The Economic Journal, 129(624), pp.2979-2998.
Baskind, E., Osborne, G. and Roach, L., 2019. Commercial Law. 3rd ed. Hampshire: Oxford University Press
Devenney, J., 2016. Concentrate: Questions and Answers Contract Law. 2nd ed. Hampshire: Oxford University Press
Dyer, C., 2019. Government considers legal reforms to resolve high cost of clinical negligence claims. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online), 364.
Kaplan, 2019. ACCA Corporate and Business Law (ENG) Study Text. Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis London: Kaplan Publishing
Mohan, M.R. and Raj, V., 2019. Medical Negligence and Law. Economic & Political Weekly, 54(42), p.45.
Pratt, M.G., 2020. What Would the Defendant have Done but for the Wrong?. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(1), pp.28-52.
Twigg-Flesner, C., Canavan, R., and MacQueen, H., 2016.Atiyah and Adams’ Sale of Goods. Harlow: Pearson