Formal Legal Brief on a Tort Law Case - Essay Example

Donoghue suffered severe gastroenteritis, shock, as a result, Mrs. Donoghue brought a claim for damages against Stevenson, and the trial judge found the action sustainable while the court of appeal overturned the decision. Mrs. Donoghue appealed to the House of Lords. Issues In this case, the issue was whether Stevenson the manufacturer of the beer owed Mrs. Donoghue who consumed the contaminated beer a duty of care. Stevenson raised an issue, where even if Mrs. Donoghueproved allegations of the consequences of the contaminated beer correct his duty of care did not extend to every consumer of the products he manufactured and for which he would not be liable.

Lord Atkin stated that Mrs. Donoghue has to show that the injury resulted in breach of duty by Stevenson and in the circumstances by Stevenson to take reasonable care to prevent injury. Rules The rule applied in this case was the neighbor principle, which essentially states that if a negligence case is to be successful the proximity of the two parties that are the claimant and the defendant should not be too remote. The proximity of the defendant and the plaintiff should be that of a neighbor.

To capture this position is Lord Atkin’s neighbor principle, which provides that some concept of relationship must be in existence giving rise to a duty of care. He goes ahead to state that the general rule that one loves his neighbor and one ought not to hurt his neighbor. A neighbor in this case gets a restricted response. The rule is that one should take reasonable steps to avoid acts or omissions, which are reasonably foreseeable, would be likely to injure one's neighbor. A neighbor according to Lord Atkin is anyone who is directly and, closely affected by ones act ions or omissions and one reasonably ought to have them in contemplation before doing the act or omissions in question.

Analysis For an action in negligence to succeed, the plaintiff must show that there was a duty of care owed to the plaintiff by the defendant. The defendant must have breached the owed duty of care, and as a result, the plaintiff suffered damage. This duty existed prior to the case of Donoghue V Stevenson, but the duty owed was usually in sheer circumstances or proximity between the two parties. In determining the existence of a legal duty of care based on the general principle of proximity of the parties and the foresee ability of the event in question.

This case provided that even in situations where the duty of care did not initially exist an individual owes a duty of care, not to harm other people who are reasonably foreseeable to be hurt by such actions. In order for the action, to succeed Mrs. Donoghue had to establish the connection between her and the manufacturer, Stevenson in relation to the negligence. The duty of care in this situation is that of an ordinary, prudent man. According to the case of Anns v London Merton Borough foresee ability is what might be reasonably expected to occur due to the actions of the defendant.

The position is that liability may only arise in a case where the defendant would have foreseen the harm and avoided it. In this case, Stevenson knew that public members would consume the ginger beer and; therefore, Stevenson had a responsibility of ensuring the beer befit human consumption. The position in this case is that if a manufacturer puts a product for consumption in which the products form precludes examination